# A wee bit hypocritical there, Ed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 4, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946 "2008-09-04T06:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/261 "2008-09-05T17:48:06Z")
> [@DudleyGarrett](#): > > \ > Ed should ban most of you assholes. no u ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/262 "2008-09-05T17:49:20Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > That’s **kudos**. > > To quote The Perfect Master, " Boys don’t get intimate with girls who are illiterate." > > 😃 > \ Uh, Canadian spelling. Yeah, that’s it. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/263 "2008-09-05T17:50:51Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > What were those disingenuous explanations, exactly? That he thought the title of his book was as good a title as any for a home remodeling thread. That is either disingenuous or downright stupid - take your pick. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/264 "2008-09-05T18:00:51Z")
> [@FarmerChick](#): > > Holy shit, you really have a grandiose image of this site don’t you? > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Holy crap, you really should read this again after you take a walk or something. You know, there’s something fundamentally disingenuous about taking the _ad hominem_ tack along the lines of “you’re taking this too seriously!” as if that counters or refutes anything. And that goes double for advisers and mods, who presumably take this board very seriously, or why are they working here as advisers and mods? Maybe I’m being magnaminous or just naive, but I assume that most members and frequent posters take the board seriously, at least at times. I think that’s certainly the case with this thread; by definition or by self-selection, only people who give a damn about this place will bother to participate in threads concerning the message board itself. There’s nothing wrong with that and should not be belittled in a disingenuous attempt to score a debating point. > [@FarmerChick](#): > > You organize your little group and [shun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning) the forum. But do it properly, and never speak of the Barn House again. Hmm, I think what I have in mind is more a do-not-feed-the-troll type campaign and not “shunning” necessarily. I hope we critics of the Barn House forum may continue to refer to it by its name, as the name is one of the funniest things about this entire debacle. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > “Quisling?” _Really?_ Um, yep, but I see the definition’s been covered. > [@FarmerChick](#): > > Oh no! The Hitler card! I am hurt, hurt I tell you! Your insult is as weak as your reading and comprehension skills. As I pointed out earlier, I assumed Godwin’s was suspended after the mod **Marley23** sarcastically compared the mods to panzers invading the Sudetenland. Or did you miss that part? > [@FarmerChick](#): > > Now fuck off, you bore me. Well, likewise; perhaps you would find the company of your fellow sheep in the Barn House forum more to your liking. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > What were those disingenuous explanations, exactly? Okay, you were quoting **Dinsdale** here, and maybe I shouldn’t intrude to defend him, but… _are you kidding me?_ This whole humongous thread deals with criticisms of the Barn House forum, the moderators’ defenses of said forum, and the critics’ rebuttals – in which many of the forum’s critics accuse Ed & his lackeys of being hypocritical, disingenuous, arrogant, abusive of their power, insensitive, foolish, and so on. But “disingenuous” and similar rank right up there. I suppose we should feel grateful you didn’t just say “Cite?”. God, I hate that. > [@Eutychus](#): > > C’mon, people … look at the bright side. > > Since Ed has his own personal forum now, maybe he’ll pay more attention and be more apt to provide quicker results when the board goes down. 😃 We can only hope. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/265 "2008-09-05T18:10:41Z")
> [@DudleyGarrett](#): > > Well, one thing’s for sure. > > If Ed’s trying to get more people on the SDMB, it’s going to fail once a newcomer opens this thread. > > The reaction will be something along the lines of, “Hmm… another internet message board were people are arguing the like children over something stupid.” > > Ed should ban most of you assholes. Well, there’s more than one type of stupidity on display in your post. Perhaps you can spot one. If he does ban most of us assholes but keeps you, that’d be his loss. And why would a newbie be attracted to a board-administration-related thread in The Pit, as opposed to Cecil’s classic columns, GQ, Cafe Society, etc.? I think it’s more likely said newbie would spot the “Barn House” forum, twig to the fatuous egotism on display, connect the dots to suss out who Zotti really is, and then leave skid marks on the information superhighway as he leaves. ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/266 "2008-09-05T18:34:28Z")
Lemme fix that for ya: > [@](#): > > You know, there’s something fundamentally disingenuous about taking the _ad hominem_ tack along the lines of “you’re taking this too seriously!” as if that counters or refutes anything. And that goes double for advisers and mods, who presumably take this board very seriously, or why are they working here as advisers and mods? > > Maybe I’m being magnaminous or just naive, but I assume that most members and frequent posters take the board seriously, at least at times. I think that’s certainly the case with this thread; by definition or by self-selection, only people who give a damn about this place will bother to participate in threads concerning the message board itself. There’s nothing wrong with that and should not be belittled in a disingenuous attempt to score a debating point. > > Hmm, I think what I have in mind is more a do-not-feed-the-troll type campaign and not “shunning” necessarily. I hope we critics of the Barn House forum may continue to refer to it by its name, as the name is one of the funniest things about this entire debacle. > > Um, yep, but I see the definition’s been covered. > > As I pointed out earlier, I assumed Godwin’s was suspended after the mod **Marley23** sarcastically compared the mods to panzers invading the Sudetenland. Or did you miss that part? > > Well, likewise; perhaps you would find the company of your fellow sheep in the Barn House forum more to your liking. > > Okay, you were quoting **Dinsdale** here, and maybe I shouldn’t intrude to defend him, but… _are you kidding me?_ This whole humongous thread deals with criticisms of the Barn House forum, the moderators’ defenses of said forum, and the critics’ rebuttals – in which many of the forum’s critics accuse Ed & his lackeys of being hypocritical, disingenuous, arrogant, abusive of their power, insensitive, foolish, and so on. But “disingenuous” and similar rank right up there. > > I suppose we should feel grateful you didn’t just say “Cite?”. God, I hate that. > > We can only hope. Don’t forget to continue your oddly amusing ranting in Green Ink in the future so we can visually set it apart. I’ll leave it to you to figure out what we are setting it apart from. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/267 "2008-09-05T19:13:05Z")
> [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > Funny; I thought it was dedicated to fighting ignorance, even if it evolved from a site promoting the column. And it is a de facto public forum and virtual community insofar as the bulk of the message board is geared to encouraging discussions of anything and everything – so yes, the Barn House forum is an odious affront to what has made the SD a great message board. Ah yes, the famous “Fighting Ignorance” motto. It’s a great ideal, but you know why it’s the motto of the board? AS A JOKE! Seriously, read the whole thing: _Fighting ignorance since 1973 (It’s taking longer than we thought)_. Get it? It’s _funny_. And it’s a found on a banner for attracting interest to the website–it’s (get this) marketing! The website is and always has been by for and about the Straight Dope newspaper column and fans thereof. Folks who aren’t fans of the column or of Cecil Adams are welcome to hang out, but please don’t pretend this place is here for you. It isn’t. Those of us who _are_ here because we like the Straight Dope would like to keep that the focus, and I for one appreciate the opportunity to learn about and discuss additional works by the folk responsible for the column I love so much. If you want a purely social forum, please fuck off and go find one. Or stay, but don’t complain when the board turns out to be (gasp!) about The Straight Dope and not you. > [@](#): > > And I called **FarmerChick** a quisling not for disagreeing with me, but for posting an uncritical thread in the Barn House forum. So you insulted her not for disagreeing with you, but for daring to ignore your pathetic little shunning? And this is your defense? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/268 "2008-09-05T20:06:18Z")
> [@nd\_n8](#): > > Let’s not fool ourselves. The monthly ad income per Doper who views ads will (should anyway) far exceed the palsey $14 a year for not seeing them. Plus the ability to post for free will increase traffic. That may be; I have no idea. From what I’ve read of how many sites struggle to generate income from ads, apparently many others have no idea, either. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > I still fail to see why some of you do not understand that the SDMB is not an ad venue for The Barn House, The Barn House is an ad venue for the SDMB and by extention to the column franchise itself. > > And yes, the goddamned earth still rotates around the motherfucking sun, why won’t you listen to me about that as well? You should stick to the bean-counting, because here is where you get really obnoxious. Speaking for myself, I got your point, and did before, but didn’t make an issue of it because it was laughably silly from the get-go, and I felt it wasn’t worth the bother because others would be weighing in (and some did). You were referring to this earlier post of yours, correct?: > [@nd\_n8](#): > > Ah my fellow ignorant dumbasses. Your lack of reading comprehension (or even reading ability at all) belies your wrath over the new forum. > > (that means you are dumb, either can’t or won’t read and this is why you are pissed off) > > Allow me to repost Ed’s views on the forum: > If you pull your collective heads out of your asses long enough to check out the website: > [http://edzotti.blogspot.com/](http://edzotti.blogspot.com/) > you will clearly see that the forum is not an ad for the book, the book is an ad for the forum and for the message board itself. > > Readers of this book will come to the “Vanity” forum to comment on the book and get shown the ads - boom, profit. > > If they find us entertaining they may stick around, post a little, lurk a little, be shown more ads - boom, more profit. > > It is ok children, I for one forgive your ignorance. After all, that is the mission of this board anyway, but let us not forget the purpose of this or any business venture - to make the PTB enough cash to cover costs and turn a dime or two to make it worth their time. > > Pay to post did not do that. > > Random strangers posting on an ad sponsored message board will. > > Hell, it’s possible that if a doper wrote a book and wanted the SDMB to host a discussion forum it could turn into a mutually beneficial relationship. Or not, what the hell do I know. > > But I know this, no matter how much belly aching we do TPTB will do whatever justifies their budget. And if we belly ache enough to piss His Most Perfect Baldness off then, one flip of a switch and the SDMB is history no matter what the income projection is. > > So suck it up buttercup, the new forum probably won’t be around forever (mentioned in Ed’s quote) but for now burning up bandwidth bitching about it is going to get you jack squat, especially when the bitching is coupled with ignorance. I don’t think anybody is disputing that Zotti’s blog site will (or is intended to) direct traffic to The Straight Dope, and therefore his book (and concommitant presence on the 'Net) is functioning to increase exposure this board. What we’re taking issue with is Zotti’s arguments justifying his doing this in the form of a new, vanity forum inspired by his book. He could just as well have directed traffic to a thread [or “sub-forum,” if you will] in Cafe Society or in a new forum dedicated, generically, to home & garden/architecture & construction/city neighborhoods & zoning, etc. He could even affix a new, permanent sticky touting his book; only a very few, if that, would take issue with that. But a whole new forum? And to foist it on the Dope board in the way he has (and for the mods to defend it the way they are in perfect lockstep) has all rubbed many Dopers the wrong way. Your childish insults won’t erase that, any more than your own uncritical recap of Zotti’s justifications constitute an original argument. > [@nd\_n8](#): > > And yet you still prattle on like the weasly guy whose breath smells of tuna and is always complaining about the air freshener who everyone wants to kick out of the carpool. I’ve seen some of you in the picture threads and I know it ain’t true but the mental image you are bringing up is an amalgamation of Milhouse VanHouton, Professor Frink, All Three Springfield Nerds, The Comic Book Guy and anyone else who has ever worn a retainer, huffed on an inhaler and gone into a panic attack because they were 3 minutes late taking their alergy pills. Wow, so now you’re not only trying to win arguments by calling those who disagree with you nerds or geeks, you’re also making fun of these peoples’ looks? That’s not very classy. And re. the weird green script thing, why don’t you explain to us what you’re trying to say, presumably to your “fellow ignorant dumbasses”? Is pasting someone else’s words in green supposed to be akin to spraying graffiti, threadshitting, or – as I suspect – calling someone a troll? Really, now. Do you think calling someone a troll (or whatever you meant) is any way to win an argument? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/269 "2008-09-05T20:38:40Z")
> [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > He could just as well have directed traffic to a thread [or “sub-forum,” if you will] in Cafe Society or in a new forum dedicated, generically, to home & garden/architecture & construction/city neighborhoods & zoning, etc. He could even affix a new, permanent sticky touting his book; only a very few, if that, would take issue with that. But a whole new forum? And to foist it on the Dope board in the way he has (and for the mods to defend it the way they are in perfect lockstep) has all rubbed many Dopers the wrong way. Your childish insults won’t erase that, any more than your own uncritical recap of Zotti’s justifications constitute an original argument. Just FTR a sub-forum is not the same as a thread. It’s an actual forum that appears as a link within another forum. It’s really only useful if you want to have several fora grouped together under a “super-forum.” Why it would make any difference here I have no idea. It seems to me that a single thread would likely confuse people coming from [edzotti.com](http://edzotti.com). That’s who we’re trying to attract, so giving them a whole forum to play in just seems welcoming. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/270 "2008-09-05T20:40:03Z")
> [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > You know, there’s something fundamentally disingenuous about taking the _ad hominem_ tack along the lines of “you’re taking this too seriously!” as if that counters or refutes anything. Um, nope, not an ad hominem attack, no matter how you want to torture that definition. Just an honest expression of disbelief that you’re taking this that seriously to call her a quisling. You’re just going to have to either believe that or call me a liar. > [@](#): > > And that goes double for advisers and mods, who presumably take this board very seriously, or why are they working here as advisers and mods? I work for Cecil; the reason I’m here is because he wants me here, and no other. Complaints go to him. > [@](#): > > Okay, you were quoting **Dinsdale** here, and maybe I shouldn’t intrude to defend him, but… _are you kidding me?_ This whole humongous thread deals with criticisms of the Barn House forum, the moderators’ defenses of said forum, and the critics’ rebuttals – in which many of the forum’s critics accuse Ed & his lackeys of being hypocritical, disingenuous, arrogant, abusive of their power, insensitive, foolish, and so on. But “disingenuous” and similar rank right up there. I didn’t ask where people were accusing others of being disingenuous - I asked for the exact things which were. Dinsdale responded, so why don’t you just sort of stop talking to me on that point. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/271 "2008-09-05T20:57:27Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > That he thought the title of his book was as good a title as any for a home remodeling thread. > > That is either disingenuous or downright stupid - take your pick. First off, thank you for not being an asshole. It was an honest question, and you’ve responded honestly. I will tell you that I did personally talk to Ed about this on a trip to Chicago - or that is, he told me of the idea - some time before the forum appeared. Based on the discussions we had (not to say that I was giving him advice _per se_, just throwing out some ideas, like many others have when they also talked with Ed on this subject), I know absolutely that he is being honest about his stated intent on this Board. He also was very open-minded about where the forum could go - anywhere from it could be a short-term temporary forum to push the book, to a long-term permanent forum about a variety of things. I guess what I’m trying to say is, Ed’s an honest guy and he’s being honest on this point. You can call the decision unwise, and well, that’s your opinion, and we’ll see how it works out in the long run I reckon. I’m sure Ed’s watching the way the forum goes closely over the next few months, and will make a decision that’s best for himself, CL, and the SDMB. We’ll have to see how the forum fits into - or changes - the SDMB dynamic. The insinuations by some of the upgrade being for Ed’s book are entirely off-target. It happened that things worked out that way timing-wise, but there was nothing in the upgrade that was needed to add another forum to the board. it takes only a few clicks on the Admin panel, and a low-bandwidth forum would easily have fit in under the old software. Just saying…folks might try to give Ed a chance and the benefit of the doubt on this, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/272 "2008-09-05T21:20:18Z")
At least we can admire the quality of some of the tongue-and-groove joinery that’s going on in there. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/273 "2008-09-05T21:27:28Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > First off, thank you for not being an asshole **on this single isolated occasion**. It was an honest question, and you’ve responded honestly. Missing terms gladly supplied! 😉 I’ve tried to explain that I really REALLY respect the folks who bring me the Dope - as well as the folks who participate in it (if it is entirely appropriate to distinguish between the two.) Rightly or wrongly there have been many concerns about the possibilities once CL took over. In that context I think the newly named forum was a mistake. And this isn’t a huge deal. But in my mind it IS a mistake, and one that could be easily corrected. _(Wish I’d known you were in the area. Woulda loved the opportunity to buy you a beer, coffee, or whatever.)_☹ ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/274 "2008-09-05T22:28:21Z")
**The Scrivener** , can you do us all a favor and cut this “new, yet controversial” crap out? It makes me want to throw my laptop against the wall, rip the motherboard out, and jam it into my mouth until it turns into a motherboard-sized opening and I bleed all over the floor, slipping on my blood and breaking every bone in my body. IOW, “new, yet controversial” is an eye-roller with nowhere near as much meaning or cleverness as you think it has. Nobody has ever said that a new thing cannot be controversial. Most controversial things are new. I know you’re not that dumb. For the record, repeating those three words over and over again isn’t the Magic Key to Getting the Barn House Forum Deleted. On second thought, maybe you _are_ that dumb and I just haven’t noticed it. The Washington Monument? The annexation of Norway? Holy shit, you’re a fucking joke. > [@Marley23](#): > > Nobody’s stifling discussion, it’s just not necessary to have four Pittings of the BH forum going at once. We’re all glad you guys are around to enforce this rule. The Pit is much better now that we can _only_ have one Pitting each of Sarah Palin, John McCain and Barack Obama. > [@JohnT](#): > > it might draw some good posters. That’s a good point that’s been overlooked, IMO. Getting a bunch of urban rehabbers on the board might pump some new blood into the other fora, especially GQ. > [@Una Persson](#): > > I will tell you that I did personally talk to Ed about this on a trip to Chicago - or that is, he told me of the idea - some time before the forum appeared. Based on the discussions we had (not to say that I was giving him advice per se, just throwing out some ideas, like many others have when they also talked with Ed on this subject), I know absolutely that he is being honest about his stated intent on this Board. He also was very open-minded about where the forum could go - anywhere from it could be a short-term temporary forum to push the book, to a long-term permanent forum about a variety of things. I guess what I’m trying to say is, Ed’s an honest guy and he’s being honest on this point. You can call the decision unwise, and well, that’s your opinion, and we’ll see how it works out in the long run I reckon. I’m sure Ed’s watching the way the forum goes closely over the next few months, and will make a decision that’s best for himself, CL, and the SDMB. We’ll have to see how the forum fits into - or changes - the SDMB dynamic. For the slow ones in the audience (I’m looking at you, **The Scrivener** ), **Una** says that as, at most, an independant consultant who doesn’t really have a dog in the fight except for (maybe) being a personal friend of Ed/Cecil. > [@Una Persson](#): > > it takes only a few clicks on the Admin panel, and a low-bandwidth forum would easily have fit in under the old software. > > Just saying…folks might try to give Ed a chance and the benefit of the doubt on this, that’s all. This is precisely what irks some of us–that it took years of pleading to get a single new forum, and then all of a sudden another one pops up at Ed’s whim with nary a word said beforehand. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/275 "2008-09-05T22:49:06Z")
> [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > This is precisely what irks some of us–that it took years of pleading to get a single new forum, and then all of a sudden another one pops up at Ed’s whim with nary a word said beforehand. Mills(wheels), Gods, grind, slowly(finely) ---
**Author:** ![Scissorjack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@Scissorjack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scissorjack)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/276 "2008-09-05T23:19:58Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > - Threads aren’t being closed in the Barn House and warnings issued because dissent is being quashed. They’re in the wrong forum. If we were trying to squelch people voicing their dissatisfaction on this topic, this thread would have been closed as well. Bollocks. Two threads on The Augean Stables have already been locked in this forum alone, supposedly on the grounds of duplication: you may assert that dissent on The Shit House isn’t being trammeled as narrowly as possible, but it’s sure looking that way from where I’m sitting. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2008, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/277 "2008-09-06T01:06:02Z")
I’m appalled by the rudeness of some people. Ed gets a whole forum devoted to a book he wrote. On the website he created. Boo fucking hoo. When you start your own board, you can do whatever the hell you want. If you can’t show respect to the host, then don’t come to his party. ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/278 "2008-09-06T01:07:25Z")
> [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > You should stick to the bean-counting, because here is where you get really obnoxious. Speaking for myself, I got your point, and did before, but didn’t make an issue of it because it was laughably silly from the get-go, and I felt it wasn’t worth the bother because others would be weighing in (and some did). You were referring to this earlier post of yours, correct?: So, just for a moment, humor me and explain without derision exactly how my point is laughably silly and how it differs from Ed Zotti’s point in the first place? Wait, hold that thought, read a little further. > [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > I don’t think anybody is disputing that Zotti’s blog site will (or is intended to) direct traffic to The Straight Dope, and therefore his book (and concomitant presence on the 'Net) is functioning to increase exposure this board. What we’re taking issue with is Zotti’s arguments justifying his doing this in the form of a new, vanity forum inspired by his book. He could just as well have directed traffic to a thread [or “sub-forum,” if you will] in Café Society or in a new forum dedicated, generically, to home & garden/architecture & construction/city neighborhoods & zoning, etc. He could even affix a new, permanent sticky touting his book; only a very few, if that, would take issue with that. But a whole new forum? And to foist it on the Dope board in the way he has (and for the mods to defend it the way they are in perfect lockstep) has all rubbed many Dopers the wrong way. Your childish insults won’t erase that, any more than your own uncritical recap of Zotti’s justifications constitute an original argument. My argument is based on Ed Zotti’s justification for an entire forum itself. Were the URL in the back of the book point to an existing forum or a forum without the name of the book it could cause confusion. Were the URL point to a single thread then that would constrain the variety of discussion that this book is presumably intended to foster. Confusing new visitors, frightening them by throwing them into an active web community like the SDMB is much crueler than tossing newbies into the squid tank. Constraining the discussion within a single thread limits participation without massive hijacking. Either that or the hijacking of an existing forum with a barrage of Barn House threads which, as long as they remain separate topics would remain separate threads. My counterpoint is the argument against the Straight Dope Message Board and the Barn House thread being used to sell the book. It is readily apparent by reading Ed Zotti’s explanations and by reading the [Zotti.com](http://Zotti.com) page that this is not the purpose. This is the point you earlier called laughable. Again, why? Why is it laughable? What would a known research author (editor) know about home improvement? What ever he could look up and try himself, that’s what. Ed Zotti is not a big name in renovations. As much as I wish him luck, I stand firm that this book will not bring him as much income as any of his and Cecil’s research books. But it does open the doors to a new audience and invites them into the Straight Dope world. That is the argument behind my counterpoint. [QUOTE=The Scrivener] Wow, so now you’re not only trying to win arguments by calling those who disagree with you nerds or geeks, you’re also making fun of these peoples’ looks? That’s not very classy. [/QUOTE] Nor is mindlessly ranting against something, not only without understanding it but without pausing to listen to anyone who may have a dissenting viewpoint and pretending to understand it. Claiming to understand the point and then continuing to rage against it is doubly asinine. If the lowest denominator is needed to accurately communicate then that’s where I’ll go. [QUOTE=The Scrivener] And re. the weird green script thing, why don’t you explain to us what you’re trying to say, presumably to your “fellow ignorant dumbasses”? Is pasting someone else’s words in green supposed to be akin to spraying graffiti, threadshitting, or – as I suspect – calling someone a troll? Really, now. Do you think calling someone a troll (or whatever you meant) is any way to win an argument? :dubious: [/QUOTE] Hey, you made me look up Quisling so I’ll leave it to you to look up Green Ink. Take the criticism as you wish, but while it is derisive and possibly childish, it is definitely not an accusation of being a Troll. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/279 "2008-09-06T01:21:56Z")
> [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > **The Scrivener** , can you do us all a favor and cut this “new, yet controversial” crap out? It makes me want to throw my laptop against the wall, rip the motherboard out, and jam it into my mouth until it turns into a motherboard-sized opening and I bleed all over the floor, slipping on my blood and breaking every bone in my body. > > IOW, “new, yet controversial” is an eye-roller with nowhere near as much meaning or cleverness as you think it has. Nobody has ever said that a new thing cannot be controversial. Most controversial things are new. I know you’re not that dumb. For the record, repeating those three words over and over again isn’t the Magic Key to Getting the Barn House Forum Deleted. Oh man, I was wondering if anybody would get the joke – or not and tear me a new asshole over it. That [probably ill-advised] stylistic choice I was making was an overt SPY Magazine-ism from the 1980’s. [SPY was a sharp-tongued satirical mag that aimed its sights on all things relating to NYC, with a consistent aim to cut certain high-profile celebrities – pols, socialites, party animals, CEOs and their trophy 2nd or 3rd wives, entertainers, writers and media elites – down to size. And one of the little gimmicks they employed to do this was to assign belittling and sometimes elliptical nicknames to these oversized egos – one per customer. Sometimes these idiosyncratic appellations were in quote marks, and sometimes they were parenthetical; sometimes inserted inside someone’s name, and sometimes appended before or after it. So, the society party monster and publicity-photo whore Anthony Hayden-Guest became “Anthony ‘Ironman’ Hayden-Guest”. Donald Trump had one too, although I don’t remember what it was, and the publisher of the NYT, who had a vanity pundit column, got (“I’m writing as fast as I can”). The weird thing is, these gnostic tags were as often as not a very pithy summary of the essence of that person. And once a nickname was assigned, the damn thing was usually permanent. So you’d see the same silly, irreverent, often half-baked (yet oddly appropos) nicknames appended to these rich, famous, and sometimes important people for month after month, year after year… and I’m sure that the mere persistence of the editorialized insults was very much a part of the joke.] Funny, I hadn’t thought about SPY in years, but a few days ago I found myself trying to recall the name of that 60-something expat Brit who was always being lampooned in SPY and who was the father of that comic actor from **Spinal Tap** and if he was still alive… and then this whole “Barn House” thing happened, and I ended up writing a pretty free-wheeling, absurdist-satirical thread designed to take the piss out of… none other than Ed Zotti. But it was only after that thread was shut down, along with the other forum-critical missives (and I do believe that the mods were setting new land-speed records in doing so), that I found this rapidly growing thread in The Pit… and wound up channeling my inner Kurt Andersen, circa 1987, with my admittedly silly, irreverent, redundant, annoying, and perhaps not-very-well-advised version of the SPY insult-nickname gimmick. Too esoteric, not well known (SPY did eventually go belly-up, after all), too long ago, and probably just a bad idea for me to adapt from the get-go. If you had a really sharp eye, you’d have noticed that I’d quit with the “new, yet strongly controversial” bit last night. Even I couldn’t bear it any more! > [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > On second thought, maybe you _are_ that dumb and I just haven’t noticed it. The Washington Monument? The annexation of Norway? Holy shit, you’re a fucking joke. A lot of people have cited those specifics, sometimes ignoring the crux of the argument. Re. the Monument, that was in the service of pointing out the folly of Barn House defenders’ arguments that since it wasn’t costing us Dopers money or time, it wasn’t really that bad. The Viagra/Monument analogy was to show in a really obvious example that that ain’t true. And re. my using “quisling,” would my critics have been any less pissy about it if I’d used one or more of the following?: accomodationist, compromiser, collaborator, conformist, sheep, lemming, yes-man, corporate man, kiss-ass, ass-kisser, fellatio artist[e], Good German, friend of Ed, loyal soldier, or “Barnhouser” First thought: not likely. Their pissiness stems from having been disagreed with (or worse), and they’ve probably seized on the “quisling” bit as argument ammo. Second thought: better strike that “Good German” reference for the same reason. And finally, as a result of my using the term “quisling,” at least one person in the thread learned what it meant. That’s a bit of “ignorance fought,” at least. > [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > We’re all glad you guys are around to enforce this rule. The Pit is much better now that we can _only_ have one Pitting each of Sarah Palin, John McCain and Barack Obama. Yeah, not to mention the spate of threads on Palin in Great Debates. Personally, I’m glad they’re all intact and free-standing, but objectively, several of them could have been consolidated. > [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > That’s a good point that’s been overlooked, IMO. Getting a bunch of urban rehabbers on the board might pump some new blood into the other fora, especially GQ. True, but as others have noted (and as I’ve echoed), some newbies are likely to be mystified or repelled by the vanity forum and get the wrong idea of what the Dope has been and arguably still very much is. And at least one other person has pointed out that another very well established message board exists for rehab/construction questions, so it looks like the new forum is figuratively pushing a big heavy rock up a steep hill. > [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > For the slow ones in the audience (I’m looking at you, **The Scrivener** ), **Una** says that as, at most, an independant consultant who doesn’t really have a dog in the fight except for (maybe) being a personal friend of Ed/Cecil. Well I don’t think you’re a dummy, either – so I’m sure you’ll agree that that’s a pretty significant caveat. > [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > This is precisely what irks some of us–that it took years of pleading to get a single new forum, and then all of a sudden another one pops up at Ed’s whim with nary a word said beforehand. So I gather… ---
**Author:** ![nd\_n8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/439d5e/32.png) [@nd\_n8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nd_n8)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946/280 "2008-09-06T02:14:20Z")
> [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > Oh man, I was wondering if anybody would get the joke – or not and tear me a new asshole over it. That [probably ill-advised] stylistic choice I was making was an overt SPY Magazine-ism from the 1980’s. > > [SPY was a sharp-tongued satirical mag that aimed its sights on all things relating to NYC, with a consistent aim to cut certain high-profile celebrities – pols, socialites, party animals, CEOs and their trophy 2nd or 3rd wives, entertainers, writers and media elites – down to size. And one of the little gimmicks they employed to do this was to assign belittling and sometimes elliptical nicknames to these oversized egos – one per customer. Sometimes these idiosyncratic appellations were in quote marks, and sometimes they were parenthetical; sometimes inserted inside someone’s name, and sometimes appended before or after it. So, the society party monster and publicity-photo whore Anthony Hayden-Guest became “Anthony ‘Ironman’ Hayden-Guest”. Donald Trump had one too, although I don’t remember what it was, and the publisher of the NYT, who had a vanity pundit column, got (“I’m writing as fast as I can”). The weird thing is, these gnostic tags were as often as not a very pithy summary of the essence of that person. And once a nickname was assigned, the damn thing was usually permanent. So you’d see the same silly, irreverent, often half-baked (yet oddly appropos) nicknames appended to these rich, famous, and sometimes important people for month after month, year after year… and I’m sure that the mere persistence of the editorialized insults was very much a part of the joke.] > > Funny, I hadn’t thought about SPY in years, but a few days ago I found myself trying to recall the name of that 60-something expat Brit who was always being lampooned in SPY and who was the father of that comic actor from **Spinal Tap** and if he was still alive… and then this whole “Barn House” thing happened, and I ended up writing a pretty free-wheeling, absurdist-satirical thread designed to take the piss out of… none other than Ed Zotti. But it was only after that thread was shut down, along with the other forum-critical missives (and I do believe that the mods were setting new land-speed records in doing so), that I found this rapidly growing thread in The Pit… and wound up channeling my inner Kurt Andersen, circa 1987, with my admittedly silly, irreverent, redundant, annoying, and perhaps not-very-well-advised version of the SPY insult-nickname gimmick. Too esoteric, not well known (SPY did eventually go belly-up, after all), too long ago, and probably just a bad idea for me to adapt from the get-go. > > If you had a really sharp eye, you’d have noticed that I’d quit with the “new, yet strongly controversial” bit last night. Even I couldn’t bear it any more! > > A lot of people have cited those specifics, sometimes ignoring the crux of the argument. Re. the Monument, that was in the service of pointing out the folly of Barn House defenders’ arguments that since it wasn’t costing us Dopers money or time, it wasn’t really that bad. The Viagra/Monument analogy was to show in a really obvious example that that ain’t true. And re. my using “quisling,” would my critics have been any less pissy about it if I’d used one or more of the following?: > > accomodationist, compromiser, collaborator, conformist, sheep, lemming, yes-man, corporate man, kiss-ass, ass-kisser, fellatio artist[e], Good German, friend of Ed, loyal soldier, or “Barnhouser” > > First thought: not likely. Their pissiness stems from having been disagreed with (or worse), and they’ve probably seized on the “quisling” bit as argument ammo. Second thought: better strike that “Good German” reference for the same reason. > > And finally, as a result of my using the term “quisling,” at least one person in the thread learned what it meant. That’s a bit of “ignorance fought,” at least. > > Yeah, not to mention the spate of threads on Palin in Great Debates. Personally, I’m glad they’re all intact and free-standing, but objectively, several of them could have been consolidated. > > True, but as others have noted (and as I’ve echoed), some newbies are likely to be mystified or repelled by the vanity forum and get the wrong idea of what the Dope has been and arguably still very much is. And at least one other person has pointed out that another very well established message board exists for rehab/construction questions, so it looks like the new forum is figuratively pushing a big heavy rock up a steep hill. > > Well I don’t think you’re a dummy, either – so I’m sure you’ll agree that that’s a pretty significant caveat. > > So I gather… As I said before, Green Ink, and a whoosh. Props. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-wee-bit-hypocritical-there-ed/461946.md?page=15)