Goddamn, this is so stupid. All of it. I really have no faith in the future if, even with the supposedly enlightened nature of most of this board, can’t rise above this goddamn stupid assed schoolyard bullfucking shit. All of you. Goodnight.
Was it the rolled-up newspaper, the can full of pennies, or the shock collar that finally made an impression?
Several bannings. There are some that are worse to cross, but whom seem to be slow to anger. There are others who get hot under the collar fast, but it doesn’t seem to end badly. With the “big G”- it’s likely the combo most likely to end in a banning. Well, I am just talking Mods here, not other staff, of course.
I personally think Evil Captor is going way overboard in his claim that the Republican leadership would consciously desire more terrorism. But how on earth do you get from that to him wanting us and the Iraqi people to lose?
Or are you trying to be satirical? Because you seem to be coming awfully close to just plain saying “if you don’t agree with Bush you support terrorism and are a traitor”.
Or am I missing a post of EC’s in which he claims he wants us to lose?
In an ideal world, I’d agree with you. I’ve most often retracted and given others the benefit of the doubt. But GD is not an ideal world. It becomes more difficult when the same people demanding retractions are people who have ignored requests for retractions, with no consequences. That’s why I’m questioning the warning to me and no one else.
I have a libertarian view of messageboards. I accept the rules, even if I don’t agree with them. But as a paid subscriber, as long as I have posting priviledges, I think I have the right to ask reasonable questions about the rules and get answers. I may not like the answers, but as I said, I will accept them.
So far I have not received an answer. I don’t have a specific time limit in mind, but I was given less than 24 hours to “reply on demand” before I was warned. Again, the very demands were, AFAIK, against the rules here (junior modding).
If asking for personal incentive before responding is against the rules, then what category does “wagering for a cite” fall into? Why would I have to accept a money bet with Bricker in order for him to produce a cite to back up his assertion? I paid to post here; I shouldn’t have to gamble money to get a cite.
Thanks, zut. Looks like Bricker was either wrong, or lying (he claimed he had the cite that proved his point).
I didn’t even search it myself - something about wagering here that I still can’t get my head around. Also, there are some people here I’d rather not deal with outside the boards.
More importantly, whether it had been a left or right leaning poster, it’s not relevant to the original assertion. Even Bricker admitted that later on (cite available for free!).
So again, what’s the definition of “stirring up shit for the sake of stirring up shit”?
Thanks for highlighting my point about spreading demonising memes. I believe Bricker’s intention was to link the word to the Left. As you illustrate, it can be an effective strategy.
Irreversable? Maybe so. I guess it all depends on what you read and hear, how often, and who gets to you first. IMO, that is the basis of the right-wing strategy to win hearts and minds. If the left isn’t allowed to counter (even on a supposedly liberal messageboard), than what is the reason to post here in political threads? I challenge the idea that trying to counter it is considered “stirring up shit for the sake of stirring up shit”.
Still waiting for an answer.
Oh, it makes a hell of a lot of difference, and you know it. Leaders frequently dance to a different tune than their followers.
As for your other point, Jeebus, do you think any of the people I cited would actually be stupid enough to publicly state what I stated on their behalf? If that were true, I wouldn’t be paraphrasing them, I’d be QUOTING them. I think what I said is a reasonable interpretation of their beliefs, basd on their actions. They took the 9/11 ball and fucking RAN with it, you think it didn’t occur to them that the terrorist attack was a godsend for them?
A hale and hearty “fuck you” to you, too, except I KNOW I haven’t said anywhere that I actively want us and/or the Iraqi people to lose, because that’s not my belief. I want everyone involved in the Iraq mess to get out of it as alive and healthy and well off as possible, with the exception of some terrorists and some Administration figures. Maybe that’s wanting to “lose” by your standards, not mine. Maybe if you could show me where you came up with your beliefs I can straighten you out.
You know what, I’d agree with this, except for the fact that the poster who demonised the OP did not refer to the wording of the OP. He linked to another thread. The OP itself was lost early on.
In a cooler head hindsight mode, this episode just highlights the futility of starting certain threads here. If I was a betting woman, and you proposed such a thread in advance, I’d probably clean up by correctly predicting who would post, and what they would say.
I like to learn from mistakes I make, and whatever my transgressions in this, I have learned a few things. There are many thread ideas I haven’t started because of the predictability of the response (see, I’m not always impulsive and stupid). I think I have a better idea of why so many people avoid Great Debates.
Maybe the paid subscription aspect just served to make things worse than before. Who are we talking to here? You say taking things personally is a bad idea, but in a closed society that pay-to-post produces, I don’t see how it can be avoided. I’m familiar with you. You’re familiar with me. The subset of posters who frequent GD is a rather small community. Familiarity breeds contempt? Sad, but probably true.
So maybe I’ll take your (backand?) advice, and rethink my time, and read-to-post ratio, on the realities of the situation. I have no interest in changing these boards, but it serves my interests to change my own actions in the face of the realities. So, thank you, John (whether you meant me well or not).
I’d still like an answer from the mods/admins, though. The the circumstances of the second warning still troubles me.
It’s as much from the totality of his posts as any one thing, but here is a recent post in which he states that he’s willing to abandon accuracy to oppose “Bushco’s” war efforts. Whatever one might think about the original motivations or decisions, the current war aims are to beat the terrorists and Ba’athists who make up the insurgency and to hold elections.
Please let me re-reassure you and others that I do not believe that everyone who opposes the Bush administration, on Iraq or otherwise, supports terrorism or is a traitor – I reserve that thought for people who compare the insurgents to the minutemen and their ilk.
My advise wasn’t meant to be backhanded at all. And it could just as easily have been give to me on many occasions. 
It’s so easy to take these debates personally, and turn the debate into a pissing contest. Some people simply refuse to cease the personal attacks, and I generally just stop debating with them at that point. But if you want move the debate forward, I’ve found it better to just retreat from the personal comments, recognize that a misinterpration is possible, and get back to the substance of the debate. After all, that’s what we come to GD for in the first place, right?
Yes, leaders do sometimes dance to a different tune. But what you fail to see is that you offered your wild interpretation, not as a subject of debate, but as a “given”. Few people, even on this board, are going to accept that Bush and his advisers WANT terrorist attacks to occur. You are free to think that, of course, but why you would expect many people to agree with you is beyond me.
At any rate, it looks as if we’re just talking past each other at this point. I really don’t have anything more to say on the subject.
If you’re referring to me, I most certainly did respond to the OP. In fact, It was a response which was laudatory of most Democrats. It is my belief, held in good faith, that the main reason that the public sees the Democratic party as weak on terrorism is not because of the actual actions, or even rhetoric, of those leaders running for office or who hold high ranks within the party (exception: Senator Kerry got whipsawed on Iraq – I also addressed that in my response) but because the Party has done a poor job marginalizing the tiny vocal minority which is actually soft on terrorism or worse – that they watch in silence as partisans march behind the banner of Ramsey Clark and the Worker’s World Party. I consider the OP to be squarely in the middle of exactly the kind of people from whom the party must distance itself to shed its undeserved image.
Depends on the circumstances. If a similar thread had been started by a person from whom I don’t think the Democrats ought to distance themselves, my answer would not have referred to the OP. Here, for example.
The fact remains that you broke the rules (junior modding) and you were not sanctioned (I am referring to the reply-on-demand posts I referenced earlier).
What am I to glean from that? Do the funky letters under your name exempt you from sanction? I am asking for clarity. If you have special powers or exemptions here, I think I am entitled to know that. I did not “report your post” personally (I have previously followed a personal rule about not reporting a regular poster’s posts), but it now seems clear to me that you have violated a rule here, with no consequence (unless, as I suggest, you have special powers here).
Your posts in that thread were questioned by posters other than myself. Frankly, I was sickened, and personally defamed, by your views. That alone is not a subject of sanction (AFAIK). But if your personal political views hold some sway with the mods or admins, by dint of your previous position here, I think I am entitled to know that. “Fair” warning, remember?
I was not “junior modding.” I had a belief that you were unaware of the recent change in the rules – they were only a couple days old and were not posted outside of ATMB – and I made you aware of them so you could, on your own, correct the violation I believed that you had committed. You’ve admitted in this thread that you were unaware of the updated forum rules as posted in GD – why is it unreasonable for me to believe that you were also unaware of the new board-wide standard for accuracy? To be clear, I did not admonish you for the violation nor did I call for the moderators to do so.
However, all of this is irrelevant, as your misunderstanding of Bricker’s posts and resulting mischaracterization of them both in this thread and the original one make it clear that you are, at best, stupid beyond all hope of redemption. Your lie about Bricker’s posting history was, in my opinion, unintentional. You lack the intellectual capacity to understand the things you read and as a result misinterpret them.
Shodan, you are the posterboy for dishonesty here. It boggles my mind that you don’t know that. If you can convince me that you are one of the Big Boys who play in GD, I will leave. Stop being a clown.
It was not a sexual insult. It was a metaphor, having nothing to do with sex. But I understand your POV; in Shodanworld, Sex=Bad, War=Good. Keep your children from me, lest I infect them with the idea that getting laid is less desirable than getting shot at.
I support the troops in that I want them kept out of unecessary wars.
You support the troops by endorsing sending them into unecessary wars.
Which one of us values the life of your nephew more?
Think on that, before you spout any more bullshit.
Manhattan:You didn’t answer my question. Do you, or do you not, have special powers here? Name-calling doesn’t absolve you, it only serves to highlight my point.
In much the same vein, I believe manhattan dislikes children. It’s as much from the totality of his posts as any one thing, but here is a recent post in which he coldly and cynically refuses to believe in the existence of a child. Whatever one might think about the existence or non-existence of a child, the current belief is that children are wonderful and should be supported.
Please let me re-reassure you and others that I do not believe that all conservatives dislike children – I reserve that thought for people who refuse to believe in their existence.
It is now 2:35pm edt.
Your “belief” is no more valid than my “belief”. Unless you have special powers here, which so far has not been determined. Who is it that will judge the validity of one poster’s beliefs over another?
Again, unless you have special powers yet to be confirmed, your opinion is no more worthy than my own.
I did not lie about Bricker’s posts, and you nor anyone else has proved that by any standard. So far, no one in this thread has even touched on what I posted in my defence of my assertion. Prove it.
Until and unless I hear from a mod/admin, none of this bullshit will deter me. Your most recent attempts at intimidation and bully-boy tactics just make my point more valid. You were a parody of an ugly american in that thread, Manhattan. You broke the rules that any other poster must adhere to. Do you, or do you not, have special powers here, that exempt you from such behaviour?
I won’t back down because of your personal embarassment in this situation.
Still waiting on an answer from a mod/admin…
My gosh, you just don’t learn, do you?
Keep going like you are. You may not get a choice.
Perhaps you noticed that the moderator in that forum did not agree with you.
Actually, no. In Great Debates, flaming and sexual insults=Bad, cites and truth-telling=Good.
Don’t be ridiculous, you dim-witted whore. You made an insult about wet dreams. You were warned for it. Now you are lying about it. Just as you have been lying about practically everything else you posted in the thread under discussion.
OK, I’ve thought about it. I value the life of my nephew more. You’ve never even met him. And you are a deceitful, lying bitch who cannot tell the truth for ten minutes at a time. So your opinions are worthless.
But by all means keep doing what you are doing. We have already seen the departure of someone who also didn’t get it.
Look, you drooling cretin, you have already been warned, twice. You are well on your way toward the first major meltdown of 2005.
And you have failed to back up a single one of the accusations you made against Bricker.
Well, let’s recap. On the one hand, we have two well-respected and well-regarded Dopers, one of whom is a former moderator and the other one of the leading legal voices on the SDMB, and two warnings from a moderator in GD. On the other hand, we have someone who gives being a shrill and insulting harpy a bad name, flinging out insults and unsupported accusations and refusing to provide even a scrap of evidence.
Gee, tough call. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
Hey shodan, your pants are on fire. And it looks like they really burned your ass…
Tells me all I need to know about what is true.
I hope your nephew comes home alive and intact. Send him my regards from a “dim-witted whore”.
You’re such a silly man. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Hmmm…three avowed Kool-Aid drinking scumbags constantly spewing the deluted Party Line, taking an intellectual pummeling from a rational, reality-based woman.
Nope, nope, you’re wrong. Not a tough call at all.
No rolleyes needed.