I think you’re think of the other Samclem…
Huh?
What rule did he break?
You’re the guy who has accused other posters of lying in GD and made rather nasty personal attacks outside the Pit.
Are you under the impression you’re one talk?
Pot, kettle and all that.
Emphasis added. Another word you do not know the meaning of.
Your comment in GQ was simply out of place. It was not factual; it did not address the question being asked; it was making a political statement.
Walter Scott was killed by a policeman who is being prosecuted for murder. He was not “executed by the state”. JC laid it out better in post #5.
This is what is known as an “opinion” and why you got warned for it in GQ.
As has been pointed out, the key element of the warning was not that your comment was non-factual (although it was contrary to fact, since the killing certainly was not a summary execution by the state of South Carolina), but because it was inflammatory. We don’t want this kind of overheated rhetoric in GQ because it derails threads.
Just so you know. The fact that mods post in a thread does not mean it’s an endorsement of the behavior of in it. We all have our assignments and tend not to moderate outside of our forums. Unless we see something careening off the rails that needs immediate attention.
That’s just good journalism.
I don’t buy your righteous indignation here for one second. You’ve been here for many years. Just stop.
You really didn’t need to say this. TSS is just “performing” for us here.
Except it’s not. Courteous, maybe. Recommended? Perhaps. Impermissible? Try again.
meh
After a particularly brilliant Mod Note, Ed quadrupled my pay. (Then I did the third grade math.)
Hi to all. I read ATMB, I view it as SDMB 101. I went to the registration agreement believe I read something close to a guiding principle is don’t be a jerk. Not sure enough people review that.
Personally I think most mods participating in this thread are doing so with a healthy dose of humour, never a bad thing.
I find it mildly amusing that the OP mentions Colibri by name in the title here but the second paragraph talks about the SDMB. Kind of like the police officer and the State.
I have news for ya, I don’t even read newspapers (nor do I hardly ever keep up to date on the news).
Welcome to the boards, callander, and good observation.
Thanks for the welcome Superdude, I find it refreshing when people just take a moment say hello and welcome, appreciated.
Thanks for putting this in non-Pit language. I tried, but couldn’t do it.
Well, that sounds completely reasonable.
Look, I read The New York Times online pretty regularly. Sometimes I read the reader comments on an article. Occasionally, the reader comments include factual information. More often, it’s opinion. Sometimes the facts or the opinions in the comments are incorrect. Your argument here is such a stretch, I’m surprised that it hasn’t recoiled and hit you in the face.
Just so all are aware, our rules on quoting other posters may be found here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697048&postcount=11
The relevant passage is as follows:
<< Text inside
[QUOTE]
tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
[QUOTE]
tags. >>
The operative phrase is “normal editorial rules.” Emphasizing text in a quote is a common editorial practice; the usual procedure is to put “emphasis added” or the like after the quote. That wasn’t done here and should have been; all users are advised to add an explanatory note when emphasizing quoted text in the future. That said, the intention wasn’t to twist the meaning of the quote or cast the author in a bad light, so no warning is issued. TSS, please do not take it upon yourself to issue pronouncements about our rules; this is known as junior modding and is frowned on. No warning issued but don’t do it again.
What did he say and where did he say it?
I went all through Cafe Society, looking for something along the lines of
Came up empty.
No, he’d be more likely to point out errors Sir Walter made on pg 32 of Anne of Geierstein when they talk about the “lammer-geier” or “alpine vulture”
:p.
[sub]The following quote was edited to one sentence[/sub]
It is my opinion that you do your arguments a disservice. I read your statements and instead of considering them I find I am resisting an attempt to tell me what I should think. When I’m not being told what to think, I’ll think about what you want to say. Others may feel this way too, but that’s just my opinion, not a fact.