# C.K. Dexter Haven, what is "this"? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 3, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172 "2006-01-03T02:16:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/61 "2006-01-03T05:35:16Z")
The closing was ridiculous. No one who didn’t want to read the thread had to open it. I don’t see how **EC** starting that thread was any different from anyone starting any thread about anything they’re particularly interested in, save that this thread was more “adult” in nature. Also, I’m not sure where people are getting the idea that **EC** posts just to get under non-bondage fans’ skin. I just don’t see any hint of that at all. The comparison to **Reeder** doesn’t fly. **Reeder** would have several Bush-bashing threads in the pit at the same time, most of them being one line drive-bys, with maybe a link to some story about Bush having an untied shoe or something. **Evil Captor** has started only a few bondage threads in his career here as a poster. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/62 "2006-01-03T05:37:12Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Involving people in your sex life who don’t want to be there is sick and wrong. Even if they’re completely unaware of it? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/63 "2006-01-03T05:53:45Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > with maybe a link to some story about Bush having an untied shoe or something. Untied? Tied? This is a post about BONDAGE! Stop enabeling **EC** ’s fetish! ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/64 "2006-01-03T06:05:29Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Specific rule, just for me. And to tell the truth, I’m not at all bothered by not posting more on bondage … there are plenty of other things I’m interested in, and I can continue posting about them. I’m just not sure I SHOULD simply cease posting on bondage without protest … I’m not sure it’s the “Doper” thing to do. Which is why I want to think about it and come up with a really clean expression of my problem with it. You were asked to take a break from bondage threads . . .to give the community a break, for one . . . and for you to perhaps get some perspective as well . . .which even you admit has not been so easy to come by for you. You were specifically requested to knock off bondage threads for a couple of months minimum . . . you gave it, what, less than a month? NOT what we asked for. Policy has evolved here over time and events; we actually thought, once upon a time, that “Don’t be a jerk” was all we’d ever need. As the community grows, what we do and how we do it and what’s good and what’s not such a great idea has changed with that growth. As your stewards, we’re evaluating what we see and trying to guide in ways that benefit the group. We have lost some of the outlaw mentality that was more prevalent in the early days. If you have a boss who routinely writes about “sperm trees” and “gerbil stuffing,” what could be put on a board that could top that, ever? Over time, some have taken that challenge, with mixed results. . . . and this is not true of everyone, though, and perhaps that’s part of our problem: What flies for some of you is deeply disturbing to others. That being said, we’ve always wanted this to be inclusive as much as possible; as we hoped everyone understood what “Don’t be a jerk” meant, we also assumed people would have more of a spirit of live and let live, that sort of thing. We wanted this to be a really big tent. Sometimes it’s a really big tent with horses’ asses sticking out of the canvas. We’re still sorting out where those boundaries might be. Evil Captor, you need to sort some of yours out too, and not by putting up more bondage trial balloons over here. I should mention we’re also not entirely pleased with you running your little research projects on our board to put on YOUR board. In the past we’ve banned people for using the Straight Dope membership as lab rats. TubaDiva ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/65 "2006-01-03T06:51:31Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > That’s nice. It’s also a completely meaningless statistic, in and of itself. It only means those other posters have little to no interest in the subject of bondage, compared to **EC**. The fact that by your own figures, he only posts ~2.4% of the time about bondage strongly contradicts your claim that “…[he’s] obsessed with it to the point that [he] won’t stop talking about it here.” I would hardly call 2.4% an obsession. Yes, he posts about it far more frequently than other posters, but, you can say the same thing about ANY poster with a strong interest in a particular subject. Well, uh, no, you can’t. Not without providing some evidence, at any rate. You certainly can’t say it about me - back when the big ol’ pit thread we’re all talking about happened, I compared my own numbers for linguistics. Even though it’s my central interest, we’re talking orders of magnitude fewer posts on it; nonetheless, people have on occasion remarked about me out of the blue, in reference to posts on the subject. Clearly it doesn’t require that an overwhelming majority of your posts be about one subject for that subject to register as an interest - or a tiresome refrain. Not only that, but it’s certainly hardly true that **Evil Captor** ’s the only perv on the boards. Occasional threads about sex - ones in which many people are participating, rather than **Evil Captor** ’s orchestrated “Let’s all imagine Jane Seymour with a ball gag and nipple clamps”-wankfests - show that a lot of people here are interested in various obscure or unusual sexual practices. But we don’t talk about it constantly. He does. It’s **Evil Captor** ’s constant “surprise! bondage!” posts in Cafe Society that got my attention, including the ones in which he gave the OP an inoccuous title only to pull out the bondage stuff in the body of the message. This thread wouldn’t bother me in the slightest except for the completely inappropriate “disclaimer” at the beginning. And of course, it should be noted that a sixth of all posts relating to bondage come from **Evil Captor** ’s dripping fingers; no one else even approaches the number of bondage references that appear in his posts. The attempts to statistically quantify this phenomenon, by the way, betray either tremendous naïveté on how these numbers work, or else are simply disingenuous attempts to obscure the issue. Trotting out some supposed percentage of someone’s posts that relate to bondage is irrelevant unless you also find comparable numbers to reference. **Liberal** ’s been pitted more than once (understatement of the year) for constantly redirecting the subject of different threads to his own pet topics. How often, though, does he post about libertarianism? Is he more obsessed with libertarianism than **Evil Captor** is with bondage? Look at any number of posters with strong interests in particular topics. Of course, these statistics are difficult and time-consuming to gather. The site is not built for it. So instead of doing a reasonable analysis - by comparing all sorts of numbers and seeing how many posters with similar post counts under their belts are as obsessed with a single topic as **Evil Captor** - folks like you just give us numbers and proclaim them to be sufficiently small as to not merit discussion. Without any basis to compare these numbers with others, though, we can’t really learn anything about **Evil Captor** ’s habits. I’m sure you have a basic understanding of how to use statistics, so I have to wonder whether this extremely elementary mistake is really an attempt to cloud the issue by throwing up essentially meaningless numbers in order to distract people. Whatever your intention, though, that’s the result. It’s not valid to use the (screwy and limited) statistics we gather via the search box unless you’re going to come up with enough to draw meaningful comparisons. He’s hardly the only poster to be classed as a one-trick pony; plenty of us gave our own subjective experiences - essentially, folks who read CS were mostly pretty used to seeing him bring up bondage, and gratuitously. By misusing numbers as you are here, **Q.E.D.** , you’re attempting to tell the rest of us that our perceptions are invalid. While checking one’s perceptions against objective measures is an important thing to do, when we don’t _have_ objective measures (as now) what you’re doing amounts to a sleazy argumentative technique rather than an attempt to develop a truthful understanding of the situation. > [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Maybe, but it’s still not obsessive to the exclusion of all else. It still means that about 92% of the time, he’s posting about other subjects. Hell, I’m sure there are posters who post about their obsessive topic that often. Who, then? Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of just giving numbers and making claims about what they mean, start coming up with demonstrations, so we have a valid basis for comparison. A lot of people get annoyed by one-trick pony behavior. Whether a single person posting constantly on a topic merits annoyance (or censure) is a reasonable topic for discussion. Trying to argue based on hypotheticals (as in, how much you think other one-trick ponies actually stick to their subject matter) to prove that one person isn’t an annoying obsessive is simply not a valid way to approach the problem. Find other numbers, if you’re this confident, and prove that - say - **Liberal** talks more about libertarianism, or **rjung** talks more about Bush, or **wolf\_meister** plugs his website more, or whatever other examples you can think of. Until you come up with numbers to compare, it’s just not valid to try to prove that **Evil Captor** ’s not a one-trick pony (a subjective classification, obviously) by giving us a percentage of his posts. > [@Good Egg](#): > > I was going to post that bondage is boring, but now I am finding this thread boring. I don’t remember eading any of Captors posts. I get the idea they are about bondage often. Big whoop. He’s really just trying to make Sure Dex’s Number 1 status as most hated mod will continue. :rolleyes: > [@Otto](#): > > So please, spare me your little find-and-replace denunciations. Let me chime in and agree with **Otto** here. A lot of these things are completely invalid comparisons. Let’s face it - getting into the specifics of a person’s sex life _is_ a very different matter than discussing how they take their coffee. Discussings the specifics of what sexual acts one enjoys is not really something that happens all that often around here; **Evil Captor** attempts pretty frequently to create discussions about the particular sex acts that interest him, and pretending that it’s the equivalent to - say - even **Liberal** ’s tendency to bring up his own personal politics is either wrongheaded or disingenuous. You can have some social theory that says that everyone _should_ feel comfortable hearing unrequested discussions of other people’s kinks, but outside of your imaginary hippie utopia, the rest of us don’t necessarily want to hear about that stuff all the damn time. > [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Also, I’m not sure where people are getting the idea that EC posts just to get under non-bondage fans’ skin. I just don’t see any hint of that at all. . . . Right . . . . The “disclaimer” at the top was entirely innocent, wasn’t it? Screw the bondage stuff. Right now I’m getting more irritated by the constant disingenousness floating around from **Evil Captor** ’s defenders. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/66 "2006-01-03T06:54:22Z")
**TubaDiva** - since you’ve brought it up, care to explain what was discussed with **Evil Captor**? Because none of this was discussed publicly - am I to take it that there _was_ a special arrangement à la **Reeder** ’s one-at-a-time rule? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/67 "2006-01-03T06:59:33Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of just giving numbers and making claims about what they mean, start coming up with demonstrations, so we have a valid basis for comparison. Tell you what. You still haven’t answered my questions in that other thread. You do that–honestly and rationally–and I’ll do the same here. Seems fair to me, no? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/68 "2006-01-03T07:02:15Z")
Errr…I meant to add: No rush. It’s 2:00 AM here and I was just on my way to bed, so you got plenty of time. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/69 "2006-01-03T07:06:49Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Tell you what. You still haven’t answered my questions in that other thread. You do that–honestly and rationally–and I’ll do the same here. Seems fair to me, no? So you can’t back up your assertions then. Okay. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/70 "2006-01-03T07:32:52Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > **TubaDiva** - since you’ve brought it up, care to explain what was discussed with **Evil Captor**? Because none of this was discussed publicly - am I to take it that there _was_ a special arrangement à la **Reeder** ’s one-at-a-time rule? Yeah, it’s policy that we’re hashing out as well as what was originally a private matter before the staff and Evil Captor. As it’s work in progress on both sides, we would have preferred to keep it there, but since it’s been made public, here we are. This is how a lot of policy gets established; there’s a problem, a squeaky wheel, a situation comes up. It takes discussion in the staff to decide the best course of action; that takes time as we examine all aspects, debate outcomes, etc. We also asked for Evil Captor to take some time and sort his stuff out too, something that apparently still needs doing. When it’s appropriate for us to discuss policy with the community, we do so; we felt we weren’t there yet in this case. We’re still not there really, but something needed saying. TubaDiva ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/71 "2006-01-03T07:50:26Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > So you can’t back up your assertions then. Okay. And you won’t admit you were wrong. I said I’d back up my assertions, but you gotta fish or cut bait, too. Fair is fair. Stoopid insomnia. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/72 "2006-01-03T07:55:09Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > And you won’t admit you were wrong. I said I’d back up my assertions, but you gotta fish or cut bait, too. Fair is fair. > Stoopid insomnia. If your definition of “fair” means continuing a pointless, long-dead argument _about_ an argument, then I guess I ain’t Solomon. No one else in that thread cares - you might as well get over it. But if you wanted to build a small shrine in your bedroom to **Excalibre** ’s unfairness, I don’t think anyone would think less of you. Just keep it to yourself, kid. Why the fuck are you bringing up other matters here anyway? Either you can defend your claims, or you can’t. The fact that you’re playing some silly game instead of doing so is pretty conclusive evidence that you can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/73 "2006-01-03T08:04:46Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Even if they’re completely unaware of it? Let’s see, I’m supposed to answer “yes” to this, and then you’ll come back with whatever example you have in mind, right? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/74 "2006-01-03T08:12:15Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Why the fuck are you bringing up other matters here anyway? Either you can defend your claims, or you can’t. The fact that you’re playing some silly game instead of doing so is pretty conclusive evidence that you can’t. Good Og, the gyrations and contortions you’ll go through simply in order to avoid admitting you were wrong are absolutely astounding. Ok, fine. Whatever. I’ll play your game. You lay down some basic criteria I need to demonstrate which will satisfy you concerning my assertions here, and tomorrow I will either back them up or admit defeat. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/75 "2006-01-03T08:16:06Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Let’s see, I’m supposed to answer “yes” to this, and then you’ll come back with whatever example you have in mind, right? Well, duh. Obviously, you know this and you probably even have a fairly good idea of the kind of argument I’m aiming for, so just get on with it, rather than being all coy about it. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/76 "2006-01-03T08:23:49Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Well, duh. Obviously, you know this and you probably even have a fairly good idea of the kind of argument I’m aiming for, so just get on with it, rather than being all coy about it. Oh, you’re the one laying little traps, and _I’m_ the one being coy? Fire when ready, Gridley. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/77 "2006-01-03T08:43:22Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Good Og, the gyrations and contortions you’ll go through simply in order to avoid admitting you were wrong are absolutely astounding. Ok, fine. Whatever. I’ll play your game. You lay down some basic criteria I need to demonstrate which will satisfy you concerning my assertions here, and tomorrow I will either back them up or admit defeat. Since it has become clear you’re trying to drag a conflict from outside the boards - though whether that’s accurate to describe a fight that happened entirely inside your own head - I obviously won’t be discussing the matter further. Leave your pissy little tantrums about the bug spray thread in the bug spray thread, or better yet on the snark board, since you’ve made it clear that your recent hard-on for me is based on some imaginary conflict between you and some disembodied force of evil that I apparently represent. At any rate, I was pointing out the fallacious reasoning behind your posting of statistics. I’m not trying to start some silly little dick-measuring Lincoln-Douglas debate here - just hoping that we can discuss the topic at hand (which is **Evil Captor** ’s closed bondage thread, remember?) a bit more honestly and accurately. If you’re only here to try to prove your intellectual chops, I recommend you find someone else to joust with, since I don’t enjoy that game. I couldn’t care less about “admit[ting] defeat” or any other such nonsense. Christ, I’m not interested in trying to discuss anything with anyone who’s only worried about winning some invisible debate points with people on the internets. Obviously when you replied to my message, you had no intention of trying to back up what you claimed about **Evil Captor** - you just wanted to start some silly little nerd fight. Have fun on your own, **G.E.D.** I don’t care about your moronic little vendetta against me. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/78 "2006-01-03T09:53:28Z")
I’m no fan of **Evil Captor** ’s, and was on record supporting **Excalibre** ’s pitting of his ubiquitous CS bondage posts. The closing read more like a “don’t troll” closing than a “don’t be a jerk” closing, mostly because of the word “baiting”. Seemed pretty clear. One could imagine that **Evil Captor** ’s intent was simply to get the word “bondage” prominently displayed on the first page of Cafe Society. I tend to doubt that suspicion, though. Seems to me he was posting a genuine thread of interest to him. That’s what was so amazing; the cluelessness of that OP – even without knowing that the mods had taken a special interest in his posting habits – is impressive. But regarding obsessive posters, **Evil Captor** is a piker with his bondage fetish compared to my NFL fetish. Seriously. I would be stunned if my posts on the NFL didn’t comprise at least 20% of all my posts here. Now, granted, it’s fairly rare that I interject the NFL in non-sports related threads, but it does happen. I’m not entirely sure it’s really the same thing, though. Multiple posters voiced their discomfort about his bondage posts. If the same were done to my NFL posts, I’d certainly try to tone it down. The problem is that that’s incredibly unlikely, whereas I could easily envision posters claiming discomfort at somebody’s political posts. I’m not going anywhere with this. Just adding another “obsessive poster” datapoint to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/79 "2006-01-03T09:55:54Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > …it’s fairly rare that I interject the NFL in non-sports related threads, but it does happen… Like this thread, for instance. Doh! ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2006, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172/80 "2006-01-03T10:38:52Z")
> [@Interrobang!?](#): > > It was also supposed to be, well, kind of funny. Not knee-slapping funny, I grant you, but wry-smile funny seems well within the realm of possibility. Rereading my post and your response, I overreacted. Sorry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/c-k-dexter-haven-what-is-this/338172.md?page=5)