Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:07 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,918
And now people are apparently mentioning on reddit that he's suing this place, and mocking him for that. (According to a youtube clip of said incident at the Oscars)

I say Redacted should learn that if he's going to talk the talk, he needs to walk the walk. Grow some balls and own up to what you did.




And um, I'll sue the pants off of anyone who disagrees with me. Thanks.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 06-24-2014 at 02:08 PM.
  #52  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:16 PM
stpauler stpauler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,569
Frankly, Ed could have just deleted the thread and not said boo about it. Seven year old threads could go missing every once in a while and there's no need to get all Nancy Grace shrill about it.
  #53  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:18 PM
Accidental Martyr Accidental Martyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,143
I think all the anti-vax threads need to be deleted before Jenny McCarthy or whoever that woman that's married to Jay Cutler threatens to sue the board.
  #54  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:24 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by stpauler View Post
Frankly, Ed could have just deleted the thread and not said boo about it. Seven year old threads could go missing every once in a while and there's no need to get all Nancy Grace shrill about it.
I hear these types of arguments but I never understand them. Saying it's a seven year thread implies it does not matter. By that logic, if it does not matter to us then it should not matter to the person trying to remove it either, because, after all, its a seven year old thread.

In this case there is also the fact that very recently, the poster, not Zotti was threatened with legal action, and a thread about that has also been suppressed.

If you do not know the difference between this and Nancy grace shrill, I hope you are not a current voter.
  #55  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:24 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftfield6 View Post
ISTM that we take this message board a little too seriously sometimes. It's just an internet forum, not the Supreme Court.
I agree. What's wrong with occasionally showing graciousness even to people who don't necessarily deserve it?
  #56  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:29 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I agree. What's wrong with occasionally showing graciousness even to people who don't necessarily deserve it?
Graciousness in the aftermath of legal threats is not the kind of graciousness I find noble. If he wants people to have a better opinion of him, he can come right in the pit and defend himself, apologize, explain his actions whatever.
  #57  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:43 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Graciousness in the aftermath of legal threats is not the kind of graciousness I find noble. If he wants people to have a better opinion of him, he can come right in the pit and defend himself, apologize, explain his actions whatever.
Who, Ed, or the guy filing suit?
  #58  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:43 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Graciousness in the aftermath of legal threats is not the kind of graciousness I find noble. If he wants people to have a better opinion of him, he can come right in the pit and defend himself, apologize, explain his actions whatever.
Yep. There have been posters that have been mocked/ridiculed/pointed at because of stupid shit they've said. Some of those posters have bounced back and shown themselves to be worthwhile individuals. Not naming names, we know who we are.
  #59  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:48 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Who, Ed, or the guy filing suit?
Maybe both
  #60  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:48 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Graciousness in the aftermath of legal threats is not the kind of graciousness I find noble. If he wants people to have a better opinion of him, he can come right in the pit and defend himself, apologize, explain his actions whatever.
I choose to take Ed's explanation at face value and believe the deletion was not the result of a threatened lawsuit.
  #61  
Old 06-24-2014, 02:59 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I choose to take Ed's explanation at face value and believe the deletion was not the result of a threatened lawsuit.
I believe what you say has a lot of merit, however, I am also weighing it against the fact that the threads were originally locked, and all mentioning of the incident silenced several weeks ago immedialtely upon the threat of legal action.

There was to be no discussion of the issue, nor was there to be any mention of the person's name specifically, as stated by Ed, because of the threat of legal action. Now, several weeks later it is written that the decision to take down the thread has absolutely nothing to to with the threat of legal action.

I am having trouble reconciling the two events.
  #62  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:07 PM
C K Dexter Haven C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,078
Sigh. Please note that Ed said:
Quote:
7. To emphasize, this was a special case involving a named individual and a disparaging post that got unusually prominent play. Had the present request been accompanied by threats of litigation we would not have taken this action. We don't expect a similar situation to arise any time soon.
Please note that the present request was NOT accompanied by threats of litigation, despite what many of your are saying.
  #63  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:09 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven View Post
Sigh. Please note that Ed said: Please note that the present request was NOT accompanied by threats of litigation, despite what many of your are saying.
I'm a newbie. Is this Ed guy some beacon of virtue that would never ever stretch or embellish the truth, even a little bit? If so, I stand corrected.

Actually, since you are a moderator, I can concede that you probably have for more knowledge of the situation and Ed than I ever will. I think the sigh part is a little dismissive though; I don't think the idea that there could be a little creativity in the recounting of the reasoning behind the decision could be so fro fetched.

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 06-24-2014 at 03:14 PM.
  #64  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:10 PM
stpauler stpauler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I hear these types of arguments but I never understand them. Saying it's a seven year thread implies it does not matter.
You can infer what you want as I hadn't implied that it didn't matter. The topic at hand just wasn't being currently discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
By that logic, if it does not matter to us then it should not matter to the person trying to remove it either, because, after all, its a seven year old thread.
No. There's no logic in there. Do a search on current threads and one would have to go back a LONG way before they would come across the thread. Do a google search and the thread pops up with [Redacted]'s name in it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
In this case there is also the fact that very recently, the poster, not Zotti was threatened with legal action, and a thread about that has also been suppressed.
And said poster has not entered into this conversation. Until then, their position is moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
If you do not know the difference between this and Nancy grace shrill, I hope you are not a current voter.
Thanks for the extremely lame personal insult.
  #65  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:12 PM
stpauler stpauler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I'm a newbie. Is this Ed guy some beacon of virtue that would never ever stretch or embellish the truth, even a little bit? If so, I stand corrected.
I'd say you're walking on thin ice impugning Ed's or any doper's truthfulness.
  #66  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:22 PM
GrandWino's Avatar
GrandWino GrandWino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Evanstonia
Posts: 9,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven View Post
Sigh. Please note that Ed said: Please note that the present request was NOT accompanied by threats of litigation, despite what many of your are saying.
A letter from an attorney's office might not directly threaten litigation, so technically it may be true, but come on.

It would be like saying "those local hooligans just told me I had a nice shop and hoped nothing bad happened to it... but they didn't threaten me or anything."
  #67  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by stpauler View Post
I'd say you're walking on thin ice impugning Ed's or any doper's truthfulness.
I'd say you're junior modding a little bit.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I am not impugning anyone's character, I fully conceded that there is plenty I do not know as a newbie. I am not the first to question the reasons behind the withdrawal; this was previously brought up in the thread by Running Coach and Shodan, so I don't know why you are choosing to respond to me in particular in such a way.

Also, if you are going to use terms such as "nancy grace shrill" then your expectation should be that one would respond in kind with comments such as I made.

I don't really like to argue or exchange hostilities, so let's just leave it all at that, I think I've said all I have to say on the matter.

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 06-24-2014 at 03:38 PM.
  #68  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:43 PM
stpauler stpauler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
I'd say you're junior modding a little bit.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I am not impugning anyone's character, I fully conceded that there is plenty I do not know as a newbie. I am not the first to question the reasons behind the withdrawal; this was previously brought up in the thread by Running Coach and Shodan, so I don't know why you are choosing to respond to me in particular in such a way.

Also, if you are going to use terms such as "nancy grace shrill" then your expectation should be that one would respond in kind with comments such as I made.

I don't really like to argue or exchange hostilities, so let's just leave it all at that, I think I've said all I have to say on the matter.
Take some time, re-read your comments before posting them. Maybe you'll understand why you're being replied to in such a manner.
  #69  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:47 PM
Crazyhorse's Avatar
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,285
The thread wasn't important because it memorialized the dickish actions of one sound mixing engineer at the Oscars seven years ago. It was important because it memorialized the thoughts, commentary and feelings of all the people who posted to it.

By triggering the Streisand effect, the asshole sound mixer in question has guaranteed that his actions in 2007 and his subsequent (now successful) attempts to have those words erased in an effort to clean up his own vanity searches will forever be documented on the internet. His Wikipedia page now includes the incident, several other message boards discuss it, blogs, reddit, etc. all include mention of these shameful events whereas before it was just one search result on an otherwise completely disinterested internet.

What has been lost is the words of 67 posters who chose the SDMB as the place to discuss, vent about, analyze and critique the event.

Let's pretend that the letter being included with another letter from a law firm had no influence on Ed deciding that MM is really a nice guy who has suffered enough. To protect the ego of one man then, this decision throws the wishes of the following list of SDMB posters under the bus.


Equipoise, bbs2k, Autolycus, George Kaplin, Ferret Herder, faithfool, Kal, Nava, Kamino Neko, Shirley Ujest, Zabali_Clawbane, Gary Kumquat, Elenfair, Subway Prophet, WhyNot, tdn, hajario, tomndebb, Trion, DanBlather, Sarahfeena, shamrock227, mlerose, Spice Weasel, EddyTeddyFreddy, vibrotronica, Cat Whisperer, Seven, drm, Snooooopy, RickJay, appleciders, SkeptiJess, Cervaise, Sunrazor, Larry Borgia, Faruiza, MovieMogul, foolsguinea, Filmbufflistener, Covered_In_Bees!, Dissonance, Lasciel, Guinastasia, Little Nemo, bucketybuck, ladyfoxfyre, Wheelz, Leaper, buddha_david, Skywatcher, gaffa, Miller, Crazyhorse, Bridget Burke, njtt, chronometer, Encinitas, Ravenman, Siam Sam, Helena330, Mr. Nylock, Euphonious Polemic, Smeghead, levdrakon, Revtim, jimbuff314

IMHO this was not a fair trade, and it was a bad decision whether it was motivated by fear of litigation or not.
  #70  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:51 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by stpauler View Post
Take some time, re-read your comments before posting them. Maybe you'll understand why you're being replied to in such a manner.
Nope, still don't understand. Honestly, I may just need some further explanation, but I'm just not seeing the difference.
  #71  
Old 06-24-2014, 03:51 PM
retsin2000 retsin2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven View Post
Sigh. Please note that Ed said: Please note that the present request was NOT accompanied by threats of litigation, despite what many of your are saying.
I think people are just having a hard time accepting that the recent request to remove the thread would have been successful absent the previous threat of legal action.
  #72  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:21 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Equipoise, bbs2k, Autolycus, George Kaplin, Ferret Herder, faithfool, Kal, Nava, Kamino Neko, Shirley Ujest, Zabali_Clawbane, Gary Kumquat, Elenfair, Subway Prophet, WhyNot, tdn, hajario, tomndebb, Trion, DanBlather, Sarahfeena, shamrock227, mlerose, Spice Weasel, EddyTeddyFreddy, vibrotronica, Cat Whisperer, Seven, drm, Snooooopy, RickJay, appleciders, SkeptiJess, Cervaise, Sunrazor, Larry Borgia, Faruiza, MovieMogul, foolsguinea, Filmbufflistener, Covered_In_Bees!, Dissonance, Lasciel, Guinastasia, Little Nemo, bucketybuck, ladyfoxfyre, Wheelz, Leaper, buddha_david, Skywatcher, gaffa, Miller, Crazyhorse, Bridget Burke, njtt, chronometer, Encinitas, Ravenman, Siam Sam, Helena330, Mr. Nylock, Euphonious Polemic, Smeghead, levdrakon, Revtim, jimbuff314

IMHO this was not a fair trade, and it was a bad decision whether it was motivated by fear of litigation or not.

Some reading this thread might be surprised to learn that I actually defended the guy to some extent in the deleted thread. I think I was the only one though.
  #73  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:27 PM
Erdosain Erdosain is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,358
I think it would have been nice if, before Ed disappeared the thread, he could have at least secured the juicy Hollywood gossip that Mr. Redacted's wife offered as a bribe to Equipoise in exchange for taking down her post. Now Equipoise's thread is gone and she had no inside scoop to show for it. Maybe Ed got the gossip.
  #74  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:34 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,626
I don't think I've ever been so ashamed to be a Doper.

So you guys get it into your head that MM threatened litigation, so screw him he's unworthy of any sympathy and let's just basically nail him to the wall.

Because reasons.

How fucking petty.
  #75  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:39 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
I don't think I've ever been so ashamed to be a Doper.
Many are similarly ashamed, though for different reasons.
  #76  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:45 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
I don't think I've ever been so ashamed to be a Doper.

So you guys get it into your head that MM threatened litigation, so screw him he's unworthy of any sympathy and let's just basically nail him to the wall.

Because reasons.

How fucking petty.
For me, it has precisely nothing to do with any of those reasons. I didn't participate in any of the threads in question, not ion the disappeared thread or in any of the spinoffs.

It's not about the guy at all. It's not about what he did or did not threaten. It's not about sympathy. It's not about nailing him to the wall.

It's about the fact that this is a message board that talks about people all the fucking time. We talk about really famous people. We talk about moderately famous people. We talk about sort-of famous people. We talk about everyday people who, for one reason or another, make it into the news. Sometimes we say nice things about those people; sometimes we say nasty things about those people.

We've done all of that for fifteen years, about literally thousands of people. And every single comment posted about those people is still there, for all the world to find. But an exception is made for one relatively obscure guy because...well, to be honest, i'm still not sure why. It certainly wasn't explained very convincingly.

I'm actually ashamed that the board caved so easily.
  #77  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:48 PM
Crazyhorse's Avatar
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
I don't think I've ever been so ashamed to be a Doper.

So you guys get it into your head that MM threatened litigation, so screw him he's unworthy of any sympathy and let's just basically nail him to the wall.

Because reasons.

How fucking petty.
Speaking only for myself it has nothing to do with his impotent threat of a lawsuit which would have only further increased public interest in and criticism of his behavior that night (and boosted the street cred of the SDMB when they prevailed, which would have been a 100% certainty)

It was his attempt to strongarm and bully a SDMB poster into removing something he didn't like to see in his vanity searches as his wife played good cop with a sleazy and transparent attempt to bribe the same SDMB poster with "inside info" about Hollywood that stuck in my craw.
  #78  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:52 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
I don't think I've ever been so ashamed to be a Doper.

So you guys get it into your head that MM threatened litigation, so screw him he's unworthy of any sympathy and let's just basically nail him to the wall.

Because reasons.

How fucking petty.

I think you are conflating two issues. Like I said, I think he is worthy of sympathy, if you could go back and read what I wrote in the banished thread it would be incontrovertible. If there was a way for anyone, without legal threat to have unsavory information removed after a period of time, then that would be fine with me also. The issues in question for me boil down to

1) Does the person who can hire a very good lawyer get different treatment?(equality)
2) I do not like suppressing the voices of many people for no good reason, and doing so shapes the reality we live in - it obfuscates truth.

On point 1 I am not implying that their is any lying or deceitfulness going on on the part of Ed Zotti. The fact remains that a very well payed lawyer, one with years of training and whose stock in trade is crafting convincing and persuasive arguments had the ear of Ed Zotti; in the meantime, all other voices were suppressed. Would there have been a different outcome if not for that? That will forever be unknowable.

I think Crazyhorse puts it better than I ever could, but the decision to suppress the opinions of many was a bad decision.
  #79  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:57 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,814
Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened?
  #80  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:59 PM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
His Wikipedia page now includes the incident, several other message boards discuss it, blogs, reddit, etc. all include mention of these shameful events whereas before it was just one search result on an otherwise completely disinterested internet.
I thought you meant the SDMB hissyfit itself was mentioned--that would be a full circle Streisand Effect.
  #81  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:02 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakes View Post
I don't think I've ever been so ashamed to be a Doper.

So you guys get it into your head that MM threatened litigation, so screw him he's unworthy of any sympathy and let's just basically nail him to the wall.

Because reasons.

How fucking petty.
Many posters have wished to get things they have posted and regretted deleted. Many posters do not like the way certain threads they start are heading and the criticism that it starts and they ask for the thread to be closed and/or deleted. Their wishes are rarely if ever granted. And those are active members of this board. Some random minor public figure is criticized for his public and real behavior and he gets special treatment. The matter would have been forgotten long ago if he didn't dredge it up himself. So yeah, I don't see the reason why it should be treated differently.

Now its not a huge deal to me. I'll forget it soon enough. But while this discussion is active I'll just drop my opinion in here for what its worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Speaking only for myself it has nothing to do with his impotent threat of a lawsuit which would have only further increased public interest in and criticism of his behavior that night (and boosted the street cred of the SDMB when they prevailed, which would have been a 100% certainty)

It was his attempt to strongarm and bully a SDMB poster into removing something he didn't like to see in his vanity searches as his wife played good cop with a sleazy and transparent attempt to bribe the same SDMB poster with "inside info" about Hollywood that stuck in my craw.
And this.
  #82  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:08 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened?
Probably not a good idea. I'm not sure if its prohibited but I doubt Ed will like the deleted thread rehashed. Otherwise why delete it?

But you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. Go to the Ed thread a few posts down from this one. Google the name. You'll see mention of the deleted thread but not the thread itself. Then go to his wiki and read about the controversy. I'm sure you can fill in the rest.
  #83  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:12 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened?
There's a sound mixer who was rude about another sound mixer after he (the first sound mixer) won an oscar in 2007 and while he (the second sound mixer) was in a hospital while his mother died. Equipoise posted in some relevant thread at the time about how she didn't particularly care for his comments. He came back 7 years later and sent her a PM on this board demanding she remove her post and being generally obnoxious and ill-behaved about her and her comment. And now Ed has apparently removed the thread entirely because he wanted to? Or something. Apparently being nice to paying members by cleaning up their posting histories is beyond the pale but asskissing up to random sound mixers is completely appropriate.
  #84  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:19 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened?
Ed gave a full retelling in the other thread. Basically, Michael Minkler won an oscar a few years back for sound and then made snotty remarks to the press about another sound guy who didn't win. Someone made a pit thread about it, telling Minkler to go fuck himself, which as you know for this board, is no big deal, and everyone forgot all about it until a couple years ago when Minkler showed up, threatened to sue the Pit thread author (via PM) and threatened to sue the Dope & the Reader. Eventually, Minkler called and apologized and asked nicely, so Ed agreed to take down the pit thread.

I think it's a horrible development, although I could believe that it was made above Ed's pay grade. You know we get lots of people who beg for their threads or posts to be deleted and we always tell them, "Nope. That really just happened. Live with it". I don't get why Minkler deserves special consideration, even if he asked very, very, nicely.

Last edited by Merneith; 06-24-2014 at 05:21 PM. Reason: speellllling
  #85  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:20 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Probably not a good idea. I'm not sure if its prohibited but I doubt Ed will like the deleted thread rehashed. Otherwise why delete it?
Ed rehashed it, himself. That part is my favorite part.
  #86  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:25 PM
Accidental Martyr Accidental Martyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Ed gave a full retelling in the other thread. Basically, Michale Minkler won an oscar a few years back for sound and then made snotty remarks to the press about another sound guy who didn't win. Someone made a pit thread about it, telling Minkler to go fuck himself, which as you know for this board, is no big deal, and everyone forgot all about it until a couple years ago when Minkler showed up, threatened to sue the Pit thread author (via PM) and threatened to sue the Dope & the Reader. Eventually, Minkler called and apologized and asked nicely, so Ed agreed to take down the pit thread.
The original pit thread was revived briefly in 2012. MM's contact with the OP of the pit thread and his threat of legal action was in April of this year.
  #87  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:33 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven View Post
Sigh. Please note that Ed said: Please note that the present request was NOT accompanied by threats of litigation, despite what many of your are saying.
Bullshit! If there weren't threats of litigation at some point, we wouldn't even be having this discussion and the original thread would never have been locked, let alone deleted. Quit blowing smoke up our butts.

That's ok though. I think that Ed is actually much more clever than most are giving him credit for. It's my suspicion that Ed was under pressure to do what he did by his management. His explanatory post gives anyone all of the information that they need to Google the name of the person in question and find out the whole story including an archive of the missing thread.

The direct result of all of this is that the sound mixer's story, including in some cases the legal bullying, is now enshrined in at least a couple of reddit threads and on a few other message boards and blog posts. In addition, his Wikipedia page now mentions the incident when it didn't before all of this. Had he let the seven year old thread pass, it's safe to say that many more people would never have heard of it.
  #88  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:43 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,015
I'm reminded a bit of the last days of the Dysfunctional Family Circus. For those who missed this wonderful thing, people replaced the lame original captions with new ones. This hobby had existed in various forms for a while, but a webmaster named Spinn built an interface to allow people to submit captions and an editorial interface for mods to sort the wheat from the chaff, and brought it from moderately amusing to (on occasion) a work of genius.

Hundreds of cartoons were converted from unfunny to funny (as well as made sick and twisted as necessary). Eventually, it caught the attention of the publisher of the Family Circus. They threatened legal action, and any number of lawyers volunteered to defend Spinn and the web site pro bono, as this appeared to be a very clear example of Fair Use, that adding new captions to an existing cartoon was substantially transformative. One really got the impression that lawyers were itching to take this one to the Supreme Court, just to set the precedent.

Eventually, the cartoonist Bil Keane himself phoned Spinn and asked him to close the site, that the wife and kids depicted in the cartoon were his own wife and kids. Spinn agreed, but allowed the site to stay up until cartoon #500, giving the posters some measure of, as they say...closure.

Ultimately, of course, archives of the site exist. The only thing that disappeared was the community that made the captions.

This situation is exactly like that one, except:
  • Bil Keane was, from all reports, a genuinely nice guy.
  • Bil Keane didn't issue threats of a lawsuit.
  • Thel Keane didn't offer to share gossip about other cartoonists with Spinn.
  • Expressing an opinion that a public figure is a jerk is even more clearly protected speech than substituting cartoon captions.

One wonders if Equipoise would have asked Ed to remove the thread if [Redacted] had offered her one of his Oscars? It's not as if [Redacted] doesn't have them to spare. And Equipoise is very fond of shiny things.

Last edited by gaffa; 06-24-2014 at 05:46 PM.
  #89  
Old 06-24-2014, 05:57 PM
stpauler stpauler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Nylock View Post
Some reading this thread might be surprised to learn that I actually defended the guy to some extent in the deleted thread. I think I was the only one though.
How did you defend the guy in a 7 year old deleted thread if you just joined in January 2014.
  #90  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:01 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by stpauler View Post
How did you defend the guy in a 7 year old deleted thread if you just joined in January 2014.
Presumably because, as people in this thread have already made clear, the disappeared thread might have been started seven years ago, but was reactivated with new posts on more than one occasion, including earlier this year.

Last edited by mhendo; 06-24-2014 at 06:02 PM.
  #91  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:02 PM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,000
The thread was resurrected earlier this year after he joined.
  #92  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:02 PM
Mr. Nylock Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 2,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by stpauler View Post
How did you defend the guy in a 7 year old deleted thread if you just joined in January 2014.
A thread can be added to and brought back after 7 years. If you look back in this thread you will see Mr. Nylock listed by Crazyhorse.

If the three could be viewed, we could discuss the point further; but the thread can not be viewed, so why bother. Once things start getting deleted, all sort of ideas about what may or may not have happened can no longer be verified unfortunately.

Are you not currently walking on thin ice you spoke of upthread by questioning the truthfulness of what I am posting?

I really wish you would just stop responding to my posts if you cannot be civil.

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 06-24-2014 at 06:06 PM.
  #93  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:17 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
We've done all of that for fifteen years, about literally thousands of people. And every single comment posted about those people is still there, for all the world to find. But an exception is made for one relatively obscure guy because...well, to be honest, i'm still not sure why. It certainly wasn't explained very convincingly.
If one of those thousands have a thread that's #3 or #5 on google, then there might be a precedent, denials of the same notwithstanding. That's an aspect that was missing from your post.


Also and separately:

1. The internet is forever. But a better world might have some sense of a statute of limitations. Just as we don't throw people into prison for life for shoplifting, having one's worst moment highlighted for all eternity seems a tad excessive to me. It would be different if the thread was on page 111 of google. But it wasn't.

2. A seven year statute of limitations, as a general guideline, seem eminently reasonable to me. But then again, a threat to sue was made in 2014. So arguably that could knock Redacted out to 2021 under my framework. OTOH2, google is currently thinking over this matter, so I suspect there may be further developments before then.

3. The suits don't want a lawsuit. The suits also run a media company. The suits therefore will have problems with caving to explicit threats of a lawsuit.

4. If you want to see what google provides for the average Joe, go here: https://www.startpage.com/

5. #6 on that list is the Girafffffeboarddss. Redacted isn't out of the woods yet. See Streisand effect. I'll further note that Devil's advocacy doesn't play well at the GB, so Redacted will remain embarrassed for some time.

6. I commend those posters who disagree with the decisions of this board while still remaining polite and acknowledging that the board's executive decision is their executive decision.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 06-24-2014 at 06:19 PM.
  #94  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:26 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
If one of those thousands have a thread that's #3 or #5 on google, then there might be a precedent, denials of the same notwithstanding. That's an aspect that was missing from your post.
Not missing. Irrelevant.

Why should the SDMB take responsibility for what results are produced by a search engine?

The rest of your points are equally irrelevant.
  #95  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:28 PM
Crazyhorse's Avatar
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl View Post
I thought you meant the SDMB hissyfit itself was mentioned--that would be a full circle Streisand Effect.
Now that the matter has reached a conclusion and there are clear and credible citations documenting it, it would probably be fair game to include it in the Wiki.
  #96  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:30 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Not missing. Irrelevant.
ok. You were wondering why this case was different than thousands of other discussions, and I thought I might answer that question by showing the difference.
Quote:
Why should the SDMB take responsibility for what results are produced by a search engine?
Because actions have consequences and the board has, "...no desire to prolong his embarrassment indefinitely."

The remainder of my post was a discussion of the general principles underlying the issue. It was not intended to disparage your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Now that the matter has reached a conclusion and there are clear and credible citations documenting it, it would probably be fair game to include it in the Wiki.
Probably so.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 06-24-2014 at 06:34 PM.
  #97  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:36 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Now that the matter has reached a conclusion and there are clear and credible citations documenting it, it would probably be fair game to include it in the Wiki.
Wikipedia specifically bans references from forums and blogs. Now if a journalist writes about this situation, that reference could be included.

Last edited by gaffa; 06-24-2014 at 06:37 PM.
  #98  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:40 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
4. If you want to see what google provides for the average Joe, go here: https://www.startpage.com/
Thank you for that. Links #3, #6 and #10 are all about [Redacted] behavior, while #4 is the video evidence of same.

Great job, Internet!
  #99  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:46 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 24,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
ok. You were wondering why this case was different than thousands of other discussions, and I thought I might answer that question by showing the difference.
From the point of view of the board, there is no difference. The board is not responsible for the ranking algorithms of a search engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Because actions have consequences and the board has, "...no desire to prolong his embarrassment indefinitely."
Yes, actions have consequences. And the actions in this case were his. If he suffers embarrassment, it is because of what he did.
  #100  
Old 06-24-2014, 06:52 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,881
Cite!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa View Post
Wikipedia specifically bans references from forums and blogs. Now if a journalist writes about this situation, that reference could be included.
Not clear actually. Here's the wikipage on citations*: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...liable_sources
Quote:
Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Hm. #2 might raise issues. Does, "We received a letter from X", necessarily and narrowly involve a claim about X?



* A page devoted to cites. It brings a tear to this doper's eye. Sniff. On edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
Yes, actions have consequences. And the actions in this case were his. If he suffers embarrassment, it is because of what he did.
Oh sure. But there's more than one agent to consider. The managers of this message board are not passive agents, nor do they present themselves as such. To say that one person's actions have consequences doesn't really say much about another's. I think one can judge Ed's behavior on moral grounds without shifting all attention to Redacted.
Closed Thread

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 11:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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