In this thread entitled, “Was LBJ a nut?”, you take ralph124c to task for giving his (not so charitable) opinion about LBJ.
What did you expect from a thread which asks an unanswerable question? There’s no way it can be considered “factual” and is obviously going to garner nothing but opinion and anecdote.
Rather than berate ralph124c, why not just move the thing into IMHO or even the Pit? But don’t chastise the guy for giving his opinion in a thread that is essentially asking for opinions.
But the OP wasn’t asking for opinions. It specifically requested evidence to support or contradict the premise. Since LBJ’s role in the Viet Nam war is well-known and a matter of public policy (and had nothing to do with exposing sexual organs), it seems pretty obvious that that was not what the OP was looking for.
That was a silly moderator action.
I suspect that Samclem’s ox was being gored. That was definitely an unusually severe criticism. And yes, the OP was basically asking “Did this guy have mental problems?”
FWIW, everything I’ve ever heard about LBJ suggests that he was a raging asshole, basically the Democratic version of Richard Nixon.
Plenty of answerable questions in the OP: Is this true? Are there any biographies that confirm it?
Ralph contributed nothing but a Johnson smack down. If the little tighty-righty gets to post his worthless, inflammatory opinions in GQ, there’s no reason why the rest of the forum shouldn’t be filled with discussions of what mental defects are responsible for GWB’s failed invasion, and failed presidency.
The OP asked for facts to back up or debunk something he’d read. Ralph’s inability to either provide facts, or control the expression his personal biases is not sufficient reason to move the thread to a forum where factual answers are even less respected.
[sub]It’s a little known fact that samclem really is LBJ.
He’s been hiding out in Akron, Ohio, since 1973, and his appearance as a moderator on the SDMB is only the first stage of his Master Plan to TAKE CONTROL of the ENTIRE WORLD.
He let me in on this one night in Massilon when he was really drunk.[/sub]
I kind of thought the same thing as it was somewhat explosive vs the usual hand slap something that level of petty annoyance would deserve. I almost said something, but I didn’t. I figured samclem and ralph124c had probably had a set to elsewhere. But I realize now that was just a lazy excuse… and now… I’m ashamed, but seeing as how the only smiley that shows embarrassment and shame is the also offering oral sex, as a manly man I cannot iconize my shameful regret, and words alone will have to suffice.
There are two “l’s” in Massillon. But you knew that. You were just testing me. Right?
I’ll let Squink’s response serve as mine. It conveyed my thoughts on the matter.
But I’ll entertain further questions, if they’re pertinent.
[sub]Want to see me hold up a dog by its’ ears? Huh?[/sub]
Yeah, but it was a stupid dog.
Alternate bad snappy comeback:
It was Ferengi dog, which made that bestiality, which goes towards answering the GQ OP.
I’ve replied to ralph124c in that thread.
Sam, you’re a mensch!
Good. Some of the other moderators could take this as a lesson in the value of an apology when you make a mistake.
And he still said basically the same thing. Same idea, at least. Just done with a lot saner and calmer tone.
Yes, a good example of moderation that benefits the boards, the posters, and clearly explains things to the person being addressed.
Therefore, this sort of thing must be stamped out at once!
Don’t worry, we’re safe. He’s acting like an asshole in another thread, so the Force is balanced.
I immediately knew exactly what you meant.
Sigh. I’ve wasted my life. [/cbg]
God damn it all. He apologised/clarified in that one too. :: le sigh ::
**
Nancarrow**, my sincerest condolences. Live long. And prosper.
Wow. That was…reasonable.
You’d make a terrible Admin. 
I holding your dog!
