He was flat out wrong and lacked the intellectual honesty admit it; even after being drowned in facts, all he could must was a “maybe”.
This is an excellent point. If Bricker or Shodan or Jodi or John Mace or any of a number of other conservatives* were banned, I’d be truly upset: despite our differences, I like to think we have good productive conversations, and I definitely find myself learning from them.
milroyj never taught me anything, never participated in an honorable, civil discussion. Banning him is pretty much a boon to the conservative viewpoint around here, in much the same way that Chumpsky’s departure was a boon to the liberal viewpoint.
Daniel
- conservative compared to me, even if some of you don’t consider yourselves conservative
“You’re being a dick. You’ve been warned several times now. Please stop being a dick, or you will be banned.”
For those of you crying foul over millroyj’s “bullshit” banning, why is this concept so difficult to grasp?
The Great Tinfoil Shortage of 2005 is into its 4th month in some parts of North America. Try and have a little sympathy.
…and they would be wrong.
It can be argued that milroyj’s infractions are no worse than the infractions of other posters who are as yet unbanned. However, I don’t think the admins only take infractions into account when deciding wether or not to ban someone. Positive contributions seem to be taken into consideration as a counterweight. So, while you can say that Diogenes did the same thing here, or rjung did the same there, both of them have, on occasion, actually added something of worth to the board. The same simply cannot be said for milroyj. He added no knowledge, no insight, no worth to the boards. On his very best day, he could still post nothing that rose above mildly stupid. For the most part, his posts were staggeringly dumb, and wildly offensive. Good riddence to bad rubbish, as far as I’m concerned, and like LHoD, I’d think the conservative posters would be ecstatic that he’s gone, as all he ever did was undermine their positions.
I thought he was an asshole. Other than spiteful and snarky bullshit, he really had nothing to say at all. In most flamewars, once you cut through the verbage, something is being said. This guy had nothing to say at all. It’s the Pit. We can call each other anything and everything. We can act like assholes. But, even assholery has its limits. A lot of us have “danced around” the limits of even the Pit rules, and gotten away with it. But, after so many warnings, and so many dogpiles against you, shouldn’t you start wondering if maybe you are out of line?
Whereas I miss certain others who have been banned in the last year, milroyj won’t join that list. Get that many warnings for being a jerk, and you get what you deserve.
I’m not misrepresenting you in any way.
The only “point” that you made is that when milroyj does it to one of your pets, it’s horrible and nasty and badbadbad.
When you do exactly the same fucking thing - well, that’s different.
What a pea-brain you are.
Regards,
Shodan
Is milroyj the guy who hates Canada?
Um, it is different. milroyj was coming out of nowhere with a dumbass comment. Diogenes was throwing in his opinion on an existing thread.
Daniel
Are your knees getting sore, Shodan?
I have to side with the “*this banning is bullshit *” crowd.
Too snarky in the pit? That’s what the pit is for. That’s what makes it fun. If that kind of thing gets to ya, you might want to hang out in another forum.
No matter what point of view you’re taking on a poster, you can easily find rifle through the archives and find posts that corroborate your thoughts. However, putting particular posts aside, I think the important thing to note is the poster’s general demeanor. Certain people-- regardless of their conservatism or liberalism, or whatever other labels you want to put on them-- have a way of being consistently nasty, inflammatory, and unnecessarily provocative. I know I’m not the only one who can detect instantly whether someone is arguing out of a sincere wish to establish a point through adult-level discussion, or whether they’re trying to force their views through mean-spirited attacks, mockery, and ridicule. Now, I realize that for certain people, that is the only way they know to have an argument (despite the fact that they are rarely constructive dialogues); but it doesn’t mean that we should enable these types of interaction simply because that is all certain posters know. I feel that it reduces the overall quality of discourse, and creates an atmosphere of negativity and hostility.
Perhaps the final straw did occur in the BBQ Pit; I’m not sure that this is relevant. You can still flame another poster without being mean-spirited. Why can’t we have good discussion and still go home as friends at the end of the day?
Shodan, reading more of that Laura Bush thread, I agree that Diogenes was inappropriate there–although again, not in the same way that milroy was.
I wonder, can you point me to a single constructive, content-rich post of milroy’s? I mean, you’re awful good at digging up posts to make Diogenes look bad; can you make milroy look good?
Daniel
There’s not enough lipstick and mascara in the world. Possibly not even in the universe.
Accusing a poster of molesting his own child goes quite a bit beyond “snarky.”
Honestly, the number of times milroyj was inapropriate and out of line are too many to count. He was never anything but nasty, angry, mouthy, and derisive in any thread I’ve ever seen him take part in. Even in fora in which that behavior was strictly prohibited-hence the high number of warnings.
I’d say the SDMB is a better place for it.
Sam
Is that the best you can do? A paranthetical snark? That is really lame.
You know what I didn’t do? I didn’t start a thread demanding to know why Laura Bush wasn’t in jail and calling her a murderer. I also never complained about Milroy attacking one of my “pets,” (whatever that means). I just pointed out when he was being stupid or when he was being factually in accurate. Here’s something I said in the Ted Kennedy thread:
As you can see, I called Senator Kennedy a “narcissistic asshole” and said that he was answerable for not leaving the scene, for not calling the cops and perhaps for not trying to save that young woman. I was just taking issue with the accusation that he was a “murderer” or that there was any evidence that he was drunk at the time of the accident.
Does that sound like I was defending a “pet” or just trying to correct some outright bullshit?
Precisely my thoughts on this banning. I can’t think of a single time I read a post by him that offered anything substantive.