How did it contribute to finding a factual answer to the question posed in the OP?
We have plenty of forums in which to pontificate. GQ is not one of them.
As for the warning, perfectly appropriate. If the OP of this thread can’t see why it’s an insult, perhaps an anger management course is in order.
Just to clarify, is it only an insult because he said “fat” nose? If he’d just said “If you want to stick your nose into…” would it no longer be an insult?
If not an insult, it would still be a personal attack, IMO.
The Mod said it was supposed to be in IMHO, so maybe the thread should’ve been treated as such.
Still, it was a little harsh if you read it wrong. I took it as “you” as in “you all”. A judgment statement - one that belongs in IMHO.
Not while it was still in GQ.
That’s even worse. It’s insulting everyone in the thread instead of just the OP.
You are correct: Bill Clinton would not appear on the list of politicians who are known for their commitment to the truth, which presently consists of the name “George Washington” with a line drawn through it.
I think we are supposed to treat the thread as if it is in the forum it currently resides in, otherwise it could get messy.
Officer, this road looks like a freeway, so why can’t I go 65 mph even though the speed limit says 35?
Coming into the thread to give everyone a busybody scolding is uncool in any forum. Don’t see what difference it makes whether it was in Humble Opinion or not. The opinion McMurphy gave was out of place for the OP; not the forum. As far as the insulting comments, everyone knows what forum those are best saved for, but the whole condescending spiel was out of line. People are curious. If someone disagrees about whether they should be curious or not, this is not the way to go about it.
Or…Officer, I saw the 35 mph speed limit sign, but the guy ahead of me was doing 65, so I figured I should get to do the same.
When I first saw the title in GQ, I knew that thread would be a trainwreck and didn’t even bother reading it until locked. I did think that the warning to RPM was a bit harsh compared to the handslap given to HH, but Colibri said it wasn’t the first time so I guess that explains it.
There have been plenty of instances of moderators making questionable calls; calls about which reasonable people can disagree. Sometimes the rules aren’t as clear-cut as we’d like, and circumstances have a way of being fuzzy, requiring the application of judgment.
This was not one of those times. You were being a jerk. You got called on it. The Earth continues to spin.
[QUOTE=R. P. McMurphy]
I vehemently deny that
is a personal insult or was intended to be one. Your presumption of my intention is totally wrong. That observation was more factual than the question in the OP.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a blatant, clear, unambiguous personal insult, directed at a poster that you quoted by name. If you are so completely unaware of what remarks might constitute an insult, to be on the safe side I would suggest that you restrict your future posting to the Pit.
R. P. McMurphy’s initial post constituted both threadshitting and junior modding. It might have drawn a mod note even in the absence of subsequent posts.
Both these offenses are against the rules regardless of forum, so they would have been inappropriate even if the thread had been in IMHO.
True. Factual answers to the public aspects of the Clinton’s relationship could have been posted in response to the OP, and some were. However, the private aspects require speculation, so the thread would have been more appropriate for IMHO.
No, it still would have been a personal attack, as well as further threadshitting and junior modding.
Exactly. GQ rules apply to a thread until it is moved to another forum. You should not respond to a thread according to the forum you think it should be in, but according to the forum it’s in at the time.
The post quoted handsomeharry, and was clearly directed at him personally.
As a direct personal insult, R. P. McMurphy’s offense was more severe than that of handsomeharry’s. As I said, he should be well aware of forum rules in any case.
A statement may be factual and still constitute an inappropriate political potshot. For example, it is a fact that Bush’s daughters have had legal problems regarding alcohol, but it was entirely inappropriate to drag this into that thread, and this also drew a mod note from me. Your comment made no real contribution to the thread; you just took the opportunity to take a jab at Clinton without otherwise participating in the discussion. Your post was not appropriate for GQ, and future remarks of this kind could draw a warning.
“Bill Clinton is an unreliable witness to anything” is no more a political potshot than “the sky is blue”. Another poster used something Clinton said as evidence of the state of the Clinton marriage. Since Clinton lied about so many other things, including lying to Hilary about his affair(s), it is entirely appropriate to point out that Clinton’s making a claim is worth nothing in an evidentiary sense.
False. I pointed the weakness in using “what Bill Clinton claims” as proof of anything.
Bill Clinton is a known and established liar. This is a fact, established by (among other things) the court that found him to have made false and misleading statements under oath. Facts are what we deal with in GQ, and if someone is going to present a claim made by Bill Clinton as if it were worth anything, it is appropriate to point out the weakness of the authority.
Or else I can just post something from Newsmax or whale.to as evidence of something, and y’all can just accept it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not going to get into an argument with you about this. What you posted constituted a political potshot, and was against GQ rules. If you post something similar in the future, you may be subject to a warning.
Totally not an insult…
I like fat noses and I can not lie
You other brothers can’t deny
That when a guy walks in with an itty bitty neck
And a round thing in his face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that schnoz was stuffed
Deep in the scarf he’s wearing
I’m hooked and I can’t stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get with you
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that nose you got makes me so horny
Last thing and then I’m done with any comments.
The thread was in GQ for about 5 days, didn’t belong there, and I finally responded. It was hard to believe that it hadn’t been moved.
After the whole thing blows up the mod admits that the thread was in the wrong forum. I waited 5 days!
The only factual answer: They are still married. Lock it!
As to the insult. I guess it comes down to “fat nose”. I used the word “fat” not as “ugly” or “disgusting” but as being too big. “Nose” was poking into other peoples personal lives (i.e., "keep your nose out of it). I have a particular abhorrence for tabloid journalism. I mentioned later that I considered using the word “pointy” but actually thought at the time that someone would take that as a slur. “Fat” seemed more generic. So, I got it wrong.
When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.
As to my situation, I am in a long term marriage. I was responding from many, many years of experience. I’ve been through “better or worse”, I’ve been through “richer or poorer”, now I’m deep into “sickness and in health” and hope to make it to “until death do us part”. But you never know. Over sensitive and over reactive? Maybe. Stay out of speculating on my marriage and I promise not to analyze anyone else’s marriage, celebrity or otherwise.
I rest my case and there will be no more comment. Think what you want. I think I’ve already been pillared but that’s OK, I’m a big boy.
I thought about reporting that thread, but decided there were enough people active in the thread and they would probably do it. But if you really think it’s not being acted on, and you’ve already reported it, then open a thread in this forum asking why it isn’t closed or moved or PM a mod and ask the same question. It’s absurd to think that the rules are subject to how long a thread has been in the wrong forum. Especially since it’s up to the mods to make that decision.
No one, including you, ever reported that thread for being in the wrong forum. The only reports I received about the thread at all were yesterday, and they were for the political jabs, not other issues. We don’t necessarily read every thread in the forum.
This rather ironic, since you were the one who made the greatest contribution to causing it to blow up, and also because your overwhelming concern about it being in the wrong forum apparently caused you to violate forum rules in responding to it.
Like I said, you would have received a warning even without the “fat.” It was a personal attack any way you look at it.
This is of course absolutely wrong. Your Charter Membership doesn’t buy you the right to violate the rules. In fact, I would hope that you would be more concerned with following the rules. In enforcing them, I don’t go by what title is under a poster’s name.