I’m rather torn on this.
On the one hand, i think that at least a couple of the incidents listed as the reason for milroyj’s banning are pretty lame, and not deserving of such harsh treatment. For example, the thread about Mary Jo Kopechne reflected milroys usual level of analytical skill and intellectual nuance, but i don’t think it was any worse than other threads i’ve seen that got a pass.
On the other hand, the (now former) poster in question has acted like a complete jackass on so many occasions without being warned that i think it kind of evens out.
If you want to see the sort of one-man trainwreck that milroyj is capable of, check out this thread. His OP, stupid as it was, is the least of his offences. His obtuseness and jerkiness in that thread almost made my head explode.
I mean, this is a guy who asks for evidence that the First Lady made a cartain statement. Every time someone provides some more evidence that she did indeed make the statement, he dismisses it as not being a cite.
I gave a long quotation of the relevant transcript from my university’s Lexis/Nexis account. The transcript came directly to Lexis/Nexis from the television network in question, ABC. While assuring me that he was “not questioning [my] honesty in any way,” milroyj insisted that “Saying that you found it on Lexus/Nexis, but can’t link to it, is not a cite.” By this standard, of course, any reference made to a book, or any other piece of work not available on the internet, in not a cite.
Another Doper, Jimmy Chitwood actually took the trouble to use Lexis/Nexis’s email feature, and sent the transcript directly to milroyj. So, the transcript arrived in his email inbox not from the Doper in question (who, in milroyj’s tiny mind, might have tampered with it), but directly from the Lexis/Nexis database. When asked what he thought, now that he had received a copy of the transcript, our hero’s only response was to say: “Mr. Chitwood sent material that wasn’t asked for. Trainwreck yourself, bitch.”
The intellectual dishonesty displayed in that thread was much worse, in my opinion, than some of the other shit that milroyj has pulled, because that sort of dishonesty does more than simple abuse or trolling to undermine legitimate debate and rational discussion.
Also, as the “other poster” with whom milroyj was trading insults in IMHO (the third in the list of his five warnings), i should also point out that milroyj had a knack for insulting people by making generalized attacks on their habits or beliefs. For example, in the thread in question, he responded a discussion about vegetarianism and what vegetarians serve their guests by calling vegetarianism “carzy beliefs” and a “fetish.” Now, that might not offically qualify as a personal insult, but it was insulting to every vegetarian in that thread. And because at least one of his comments was addressed directly to me, i responded with an insult of my own.
I can’t pretend to cry too many tears over the departure of milroyj. All i will miss will be the diversion of marvelling at his idiocy. At the same time, though, i think that some of the listed warnings that led to his banning are pretty crappy and not deserving of such a penalty.
And this leads me to another point about the whole issue of banning. I’ve already mentioned that i was the person with whom milroyj was trading insults, in one of the incidents that led to his banning. This leads me to believe that i probably have (at least) one warning against my name, about which i knew nothing up until this moment.
I have always been under the impression that the sort of warnings that lead to bannings are usually given formally, either in the thread itself (e.g., “Consider this a formal warning”), or in an email from the staff. Yet the only Moderator intervention in that thread was Czarcasm saying: “If you two want to exchange apologies, you may do so, but this will be dropped now.” Doesn’t really sound like the sort of formal warning that i’ve always assumed was necessary to count towards a banning.
And if, like me, milroyj received no email from the staff about his behavior in that thread, how the flying fuck was he supposed to know that Czarcasm’s rather mild admonition constituted a formal warning? I mean, milroyj was as thick as two short planks at the best of times; it’s a bit unfair to expect him to draw subtle inferences from heavily-veiled “warnings.”
I think some clarification from the board Admin about exactly what constitutes a warning might be in order here.
