Boy Scout 11 is back!

[Binarydrone]

@kunilou

…Hey, remember when BoyScout11 was here? Now HE was a real nut!

::Snif:: Good times, man, good times.

[Smeghead]

@kunilou

Hey, remember when BoyScout11 was here? Now HE was a real nut!

Fucko off!

[DrDeth]

Why was he banned again? For making stupid posts and not backing his opinions up with cites? :dubious:

I mean- I see how annoying he was, but I don’t see how that’s agin the rules.

[InvidiousCourgette]

@DrDeth

Why was he banned again?

Apparently because fighting ignorance is not enough anymore. Mocking it don’t even cut it. Banning ignorance is the future, kiddo. Excuse me if I am saddened.

[Rufus_Xavier]

As I recall, mr. boyscout was actually insulting SDMBers in the GD threads he posted to. Is that not a bannable offense?

[Shalmanese]

For calling other posters obtuse of all things. I have to say, it ranks among the 10 lamest banning excuses in history.

[InvidiousCourgette]

@Rufus Xavier

As I recall, mr. boyscout was actually insulting SDMBers in the GD threads he posted to. Is that not a bannable offense?

You are correct on both points. His final damning insult, for which he was banned, was:

According to some of the more obtuse posters, a debate is when anyone posts something and then he sites why it is true.

I am mortified. Of course he was right to be banned.

[DrDeth]

@InvidiousCourgette

You are correct on both points. His final damning insult, for which he was banned, was:

I am mortified. Of course he was right to be banned.

Whoa Nelly. Gosh. Scarred for life, I bet they were. :rolleyes: :dubious:

[Dunderman]

@Shalmanese

For calling other posters obtuse of all things. I have to say, it ranks among the 10 lamest banning excuses in history.

He was warned not to do it, and then did it. Clear case if you ask me.

[Rufus_Xavier]

Check this quote from his second post:

I have been on line for about 9 years now on different sites, but so far, it seems I don’t play well with other kids. I seem to have a knack for making others angry with me. I do not attack others, unless attacked and one of my favorite sayings is, these pages will lay anyone bare, with time.

hmmm. An early warning. Remarkable prescient.

[Shodan]

Actually, there was a bit more to it than that.

I recall a number of ad hominems, at least one fairly blatant admission of trolling, and a major copyright violation (for which I believe he apologized).

The bottom line is he had no idea how a real debate operates, showed no sign of being willing to learn, and started ripping on (of all people) Bricker, one of the most reasonable posters we’ve got. And therefore, mercifully, his tenure on the SDMB came to a premature end.

No idea of what he was doing, it was over way too quickly, and the general consensus was that no one is the better for the experience. Sounds like my sex life.

Regards,
Shodan

[DrDeth]

Hey, I am not saying that I miss him and want him back, either. Good riddance.

But ad hominems? When we start banning for that, we can clear this board out fairly quickly. Same thing with “he had no idea how a real debate operates, showed no sign of being willing to learn”. Those two alone, and 90% of the posters in GD are gone. (I think I may have slipped in an ad hominem myself maybe once or twice.)

It just seems like rather than being banned for being “a jerk”, he was banned for being annoying. :dubious:

[John_Mace]

@DrDeth

It just seems like rather than being banned for being “a jerk”, he was banned for being annoying. :dubious:

Go back thru his threads and you’ll see that he directly insulted people. He was given a severe warning, something like “we almost banned you for this but will give you one more chance. No more warnings.” He hurled out another insult and was banned. Open and shut case.

[Shodan]

@DrDeth

Hey, I am not saying that I miss him and want him back, either. Good riddance.

But ad hominems? When we start banning for that, we can clear this board out fairly quickly.

This was in Great Debates, where ad hominems are verboten.

@DrDeth

Same thing with “he had no idea how a real debate operates, showed no sign of being willing to learn”. Those two alone, and 90% of the posters in GD are gone. (I think I may have slipped in an ad hominem myself maybe once or twice.)

It just seems like rather than being banned for being “a jerk”, he was banned for being annoying. :dubious:

Well, he was certainly annoying, but AFAICT he was hit with the Clue Stick, it didn’t help, and therefore the mods dropped the Bomb. In my opinion, because he was being a jerk. And was likely to continue being so until his guest pass ran out. So I agree with John Mace - nothing ambiguous about this one at all.

Although, as I pointed out in my Pitting of the dear departed, it is rare indeed to see the board come together with such touching unanimity. Let’s all join hands and sing:

*Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya!
Oooh Lo-ord, Kumbaya!

Someone’s trolling, Mod, Kumbaya!
Someone’s trolling, Mod, Kumbaya!
Someone’s trolling, Mod, Kumbaya!
Oh Mo-od, Kumbaya!*

Regards,
Shodan

[Shalmanese]

@blowero

Are you being deliberately obtuse? When one is demonstrating that an analogy is inapt, it is quite appropriate to note that the 2 things being compared are different in a crucial way. I don’t know what to say - I’m stunned that you aren’t getting that.

link

@Jurph

If you do not manage to post a link using the URL function of this website by the third page, I’m going to assume that you’re just doing this to get a rise out of us, or that you’re an ELIZA program that has been very cunningly programmed to imitate a fifteen-year-old message board lurker getting his jollies from being deliberately obtuse. At that point, there’s only one thing left to do, and that’s starve you out.

link

@Hentor the Barbarian

Okay, now I sense that you are being deliberately obtuse, so this will be my last exchange on this specific topic. Are you ready: A frickin’ phone. That is the amazing technology he would have needed. “Call the Chief of the FAA. Tell them to have this message sent to all planes…”

link

@jshore

pervert: I kind of think you are being a bit purposely obtuse here.

link

@Steve MB

As is quite obvious to those who are not being wilfully obtuse, the argument is that Moore selectively presented “Potemkin Village Happy Happy Joy Joy” images of Saddam’s Iraq.

link

@LouisB

Polerius, if you cannot immediately see the difference between a fraternal organization (Masons), a professional association (AMA), and an Insurance company (AAA), I can’t see any point in discusing the matter further with you. I think you don’t want your ignorance fought; I think you are being deliberately obtuse and that’s about the most favorable interpretation I can put on it.

link

@blowero

No, it’s NOT the argument to be had. THAT argument would take the form of a NEW thread entitled: “Do you think Kerry would be a better president than Bush?” But you seem to want to be deliberately obtuse, and pretend that debate hasn’t already been had 1,000 times over.

link

I’m not saying Boy_Scout11 shouldn’t have been banned, I’m just saying that it was the clearest case I’ve ever seen of ban-them-first-and-make-up-an-excuse-later.

[Gaudere]

Shalmanese, all of those were variants of “deliberately obtuse”. We do allow people to say “you’re pretending you’re stupid!” but we do not allow “you’re stupid”. “Deliberately obtuse” means “I know you’re not stupid, you’re just acting like you are [to avoid admitting error/make some point/etc.]”. Straight-out “you are obtuse” is different.

Shodan:

This was in Great Debates, where ad hominems are verboten.

Actually, it is direct personal insults that are not allowed; ad hominems are sometimes insults but not always. Ad hominems are logical errors, but those are allowed. “Your argument about Kerry is wrong because you are a Republican” is an ad hominem. “Your argument about Kerry is wrong because you are a dumbass” is an ad hominem AND an insult.

[Shodan]

@Gaudere

Shodan:
Actually, it is direct personal insults that are not allowed; ad hominems are sometimes insults but not always. Ad hominems are logical errors, but those are allowed. “Your argument about Kerry is wrong because you are a Republican” is an ad hominem. “Your argument about Kerry is wrong because you are a dumbass” is an ad hominem AND an insult.

I stand corrected, then. I always thought ad hominem was a synonym for “insult”.

And thanks for the correction regarding “deliberately obtuse” vs. “you are obtuse”, which I think is a useful one. ISTM that “you are being deliberately obtuse” is often a synonym for “how dare you disagree with me after I have presented my self-evidently irrefutable arguments”, a debating style common among the more prissily self-righteous on the SDMB. And of course, anyone who disagrees with me on any of the above is being deliberately obtuse.

Regards,
Shodan

[InvidiousCourgette]

@Shodan

it is rare indeed to see the board come together with such touching unanimity

Touching maybe, unanimity I do not think so. Boy Scout’s ban was cheered because it fit within the letter of the rules (and IMHO not the spirit) and specifically because it was a popular exercise in intellectual eugenics. I did not really enjoy seeing him being mocked, however cleverly and amusingly it was done. For a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, I felt the mockery and banning were shameful.

[Skywatcher]

Some ignorance just refuses to be fought.