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
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
manhattan could apply that to himself just as well.
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)