I had composed a whole thing here but reading Colibri’s post made it much more clear.
Thank you for your patience 
Doesn’t he actually have to stop defending his position before he gets to live it down?
If it isn’t hard you can’t stick it in a paper towel tube.
For the record, and in response to this post, I should point out that I feel anything but “eviscerated” by the posts in the Paterno thread. The “thought experiment,” as it’s being referred to here, was made necessary because that thread’s poster’s were flat out refusing to look closely at the unlikely mechanics involved in their rape accusations, stating flatly that only a pervert would look at them in the first place. (It should be noted that the Sandusky trial prosecutors therefore qualify as perverts for they felt it necessary to place a nonexistent platform in the shower in their computer-animated version of the assault in an attempt to circumvent the very problem my thought experiment was designed to highlight.) So it became necessary to come up with some way to get them to face the facts in a way they couldn’t ignore, and that was the method I came up with. And there’s nothing wrong with it - it illustrated the point and the difficulties involved perfectly, and that is exactly what it was intended to do…to get people thinking instead of assuming.
It should also be noted that events have proven me correct in virtually every key argument I’ve made in that thread. The Sandusky jury found that Mike McQueary’s testimony did not constitute proof of rape, and absolutely no evidence has emerged to show that Joe Paterno, et al., conspired and knowingly covered up ten years of child abuse and rape by Jerry Sandusky.
So I’ve been right going all the way back to the beginning of the thread a year ago. Thus I’m not concerned with my having allegedly lost my “reputation.” I was right; the multitude was wrong. Period. If people want to stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes and pretend that I’m somehow a jerk because I dared to be right about a subject they wanted me to be wrong about, then frankly I couldn’t care less about their opinion of me. If having stood up for truth, justice and due process is a “bed I have to lie in,” I’ll lie in it happily.
And finally, a note to you, Colibri. It isn’t my intention to hijack the thread, and having said what I have, I don’t think it’ll be necessary for me to add anything else as the thread progresses other than perhaps to refer posters later in the thread back to this post if necessary. But since a couple of posters have chosen to characterize my posts in the Paterno thread and the board’s response to it in a way that I felt was misleading, and since a couple of posters who are unfamiliar with the goings-on in that thread expressed curiosity about it and received answers that I felt were misleading, I thought a quick response to make my position clear would be in order.
I’m glad you brought this up becaue I completely missed it the first time.
So help me out here, what exactly was that whole thing about?
Is there something wrong with me, that this post made me laugh out loud?
Seldom was so much said for so little so often.
golf-clap
What’s that word for when people can’t argue against you with facts so they mock you instead? Oh, yeah…
“Losing!”
Just to make sure - not that I’d ever care to do so, but it would be OK to reference the paper towel tube in the Pit, right?
If posters on this message board are enjoined from commenting on what is probably one of the dumbest things ever posted under this domain for fear of dredging up the issue and not allowing the purveyor of the trope in question to “live it down,” should not said purveyor be similarly prohibited from this field of discourse? It’s kind of hard to “refrain from jabs at other posters” when said poster continues to reiterate his (demonstrably wrong) position vis a vis jabs at a paper towel tube.
Moderator Instructions
Drop it right now, Starving Artist. Don’t make further attempts to bring the argument to this forum, and don’t make claims that you “won” the argument here, which are irrelevant to my moderator action. You’ll receive a warning if you do so.
If someone does make a similar remark in GQ in the future referring to the Pit thread, report it and allow us to take action. Do not address it in any way in GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
You’re free to do so in the Pit. Don’t introduce such remarks to threads in GQ or other forums where they don’t belong.
If you want to add to the other 1,000 posts referencing it, go for it.
I will comply of course. In addition I’d like to know if this instruction applies to all forums other than the Pit? I ask because you reference GQ specifically.
So let me get this straight. It is Ok to joke in GQ as long as it doesn’t derail the conversation and the question is being answered. After all this is supposed to be fun, right? But this particular joke/SD meme is not allowed. Even when it does not reference another poster directly. Ok that’s where you lost me. If I wanted answers without interaction and humor I would just use google and wiki. Might as well shut this place down.
My instructions apply only to GQ. Other moderators may handle the issue in their forums as they feel is appropriate.
In general, yes.
You know perfectly well this is not a joke, but a dig, and the reference is to Starving Artist. The background has been explained repeatedly. If you’re not getting it, it’s because you don’t want to get it.
Ah, yes. This one particular instance means we’ve banned all humor and interaction on the board. Of course, you’ll still have absurd hyperbole to fall back on.
Thanks.
Thank God for that.
But in this particular case it was a thread about someone named Sandusky. Of course there is going to be a call back to a memorable meme about the more famous Sandusky. It is not an insult. The poster who shall remain nameless but not silent was not mentioned. I’m sure many people were like me and opened the thread thinking it had to do with Jerry Sandusky’s family. It was a joke about the subject. The note to not have it devolve into a hijack was valid. The OP obviously missed the note. It happens. I know I’ve done it. Its not the end of the world. In a perfect world none of us would ever miss a post before posting. I’m sure it will happen again. But unless the OP has a history of ignoring Mod instruction it in no way warranted a warning. It seems you are bending over backwards to protect someone from the consequences of their own stupidity.