Another Question RE: Another Warning.

Okay, so now we’ll have a thread that really doesn’t need to be, all because I’m obeying a moderator’s instruction and not including this question in the original thread.

Referencing this post…

Which gets this warning…

Okay, samclem is NOT the issue here. The warning appears to be structured and focused and directed at a specific act. The problem is this, I don’t see the trolling, the being a jerk, nor have I the slightest clue about what might be so patently offensive about a “paper towel tube.” To me, GW’s statement was one in jest about the modding. So, what am I missing?

Household cleaning supplies are a protected class now.

I don’t know what this means either, but it seems germane to the warning.

Starving Artist was widely ridiculed several years ago, for claiming that football coach who raped those boys could not have done so, and suggesting an experiment involving a paper towel tube that would demonstrate.

It’s a specific reference to a past SA thread that caused a great deal of controversy in the past. It’s not relevant to any of these threads.

Starving Artist made reference to a paper towel tube in the Joe Paterno/Sandusky thread that most people in that thread found objectionable. It became a focus of the thread which became very heated and angry. After that thread was dead, there were posters who brought up the paper towel tube in unrelated threads around the board. As distasteful as the original comment was, posters can’t keep hammering on someone about it, especially when the poster in question wasn’t bringing it up and resurrecting it himself.

There have been a handful of similar situations (in which posters were getting hit over the head with past comments in unrelated threads) and have been handled similarly.

His post was kinda the very definition of just ‘being a jerk’. It’s entire purpose was to irritate.

I didn’t mean to start a Streisand Effect thing here… you know, putting bigger spotlight on the history of the story b/c of the warning I was given, but I’m kind of thrilled that it’s the case.

Ahhhh…okay. I understand now. Thank you.

ETA, this thread wasn’t intended as a jab at any poster or any post. It just seems it worked out that way.

Not a problem, and I think that’s why it’s better to start separate threads- It contains the questions and answers without getting mired up in the other thread’s stuff and leads to a quicker resolution, IMHO.

Anyone who knows enough to employ the “paper tube” dig should know that the mods have ruled that it should not be employed outside the Pit.

Regards,
Shodan

FTR, I had no idea what that post meant, nor why he/it got hammered. Which actually raises a point, come to think of it, about how following the admonishments to read all the Mod Notes/Warnings, one can learn absolutely nothing about what the fuss is about, and blithely wander into the same minefield. Where there are inside jokes I guess inside insults lurk; perhaps I have been whooshed-but-also-been outside one or two of those already.

Regards,
Leo

Of course you are. That was your intent, in addition to taking a jab at Starving Artist. I think this is an admission that you were trolling in the thread.

It’s not, but I can’t tell you what to think.

You’ll notice that I haven’t argued against this warning a single bit.

Truth is, I was a bit under the influence and just didn’t consider anything more with that comment than getting a fun little dig in at SA, forgetting that we had been ordered to pretend it never happened.

I’m certainly not butthurt over it.

Under the influence, eh? Who would have guessed?

I actually don’t drink much. The username is a play on the name of my favorite photographer, Garry Winogrand.

Weed on the other hand…

If you didn’t participate or read the original Pit thread consider yourself lucky.

Over and over and over and over and over. :rolleyes:

Now, I guess if someone started a thread about “Ridiculous positions SA has taken” (in the BBQ Pit of course!) then it’d be fair game. but in ATMB? In a unrelated thread?

Trolling, pure and simple.

Seems to me the question was asked, answered in more detail than required, and continued posting in this thread just serves to bring more spotlight to the issue.

Reported for closure.