And for the record, we all learned our lesson. :rolleyes:
Its good of you to accept responsibility for issuing the ridiculous official mod warning regarding “wishing death on other posters” .
My apologies to Marley23 for misdirecting my complaint.
Can we still insinuate death to large groups of people that are not members here?
I’m going to disagree, and say she’s not telling anyone to go hang themself, and she’s not directly wishing death of any other poster. Cougar58 wrote:
The only way someone is hurt in this scenario is if their pitbull goes out of control and starts dragging the owner. If you’re holding on to the rope and the dog is heeling or pulling gently, there’s no problem.
It’s about like saying, “If someone believes they can drive safely with with a 0.8 blood alcohol content I encourage them to test that on a winding mountain road when there’s no other cars around and without wearing a seatbelt.” If the (generic) people saying they can drive fine with 0.8 are right, then there’s no statistically significant problem.
If the generic “nutters” who believe that controlling their large muscular dog isn’t a problem, then there’s not much danger.
All that aside, for cougar58 to advocate poisoning dogs was a jerk move, and I can understand her being on a “short leash” and have no serious problem with the ban.
She advocated poisoning dogs. It is logical to assume that the intended meaning is one which hangs both the dog and the nutter.
:dubious:
If she means to hang the dog, why would she say “harness” instead of “noose”? If she wants to hang the dog owner instead of just making them put their “money where their mouth is” there are much better ways of doing that than putting a dog at the other end of the noose.
And while link about poisoning dogs did, IMO, have cougar58 advocating breaking the law, she did limit the suggestion to dogs that were actively dangerous based on past activity, and to situations where the government refused to take action.
She also gave a cite for a court supporting the killing of a dangerous dog that the government had neglected to take action on. She went over the line in that post, but to equate that medium well-hedged argument to advocating that “nutters” go hang themselves is :dubious: .
Banning Cougar58 reeks of prejudice in favor of one side of an ongoing argument. His arguments were always well expressed and fully backed up with cites and research.
And, for the love of Christ, it is the PIT. don’t try to apply nicey nicey Kumbayah behavior and expression to the PIT! What is the point of the PIT if you have to avoid even indirect insults to the other parties? Yes, pit bull lovers are deluded and we pray they won’t have to suffer for their delusion, but, where is the justification for having a dangerous animal in the first place? Why???
No way Cougar58 deserved being singled out for any banning. I think it pretty stupid on the mods part, myself.
I surely hope this site is not as rotten as authonomy where a few users who disagree with another can deluge admin with enough abuse reports they delete the person they dislike without ever considering any of the evidence. Apparently a bunch of mods all agreed that cougar58 had to go…they were wrong, but, at least it appears they considered the posts before taking action. Wrong action, unjustifiable action, stupid action, but, ‘considered’ action.
In order to skirt the warning for wanting to poison 'em.
And she thinks that anything which remotely resembles a Pit Bull is dangerous, no matter what the previous behavior. Cite: her posting on DogsBite.org.
Just a short jump from wanting such dogs dead to wanting those who defend them dead as well.
Ah, it seems to me she received several warnings from moderators that her “behavior” was crossing the line. And a suspension too, IIRC. She didn’t learn.
You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
So, she avoids using “noose” for the dog due to an earlier warning, but thinks there shouldn’t be an issue if it’s on the human end? But the reader is supposed to understand that she really means that the dog should be hung along with the human?
If that’s the “logical” interpretation of cougar58’s noose remark, I’ll stick with my original illogical interpretation from upthread.
If Authonomy’s users are so vile, why do you keep trying to get them all to come here?
:smack:
MODERATOR NOTE: This is getting to be more argumentative than anything else and is not appropriate for ATMB.
If you have a disagreement with another poster you need to take it to the Pit.
Dial it down or this thread will be closed.
87 of her last 100 posts were in the Pit Bull thread. There were two complaints about the way she was moderated and the other posts were about tooth bleaching. If you read the threads “Pitbulls” and “Pit Bulls (continued),” I think you’ll find a very large chunk of her posts, especially over the last few months. If she were posting in other forums we might have moderated that more strictly, but since she was mostly ranting in the Pit we let it go. Still, she had a pattern of insulting people when she wasn’t in the Pit and for breaking other rules, like telling other people to kill dogs or the “noose” post. For context: from what I saw, everyone who disagreed with her about the dogs was a “nutter.”
We’re not a court of law.
The main rule here is “don’t be a jerk.” If you tell people you hope they die, you’re a jerk.
THIS
THIS * 1000 - it really, really reeks of prejudice.
This is not the action of a community dedicated to fighting ignorance. This reeks of quelling dissenting opinion - which was quite well-backed.
Show me how cougar58 was any more of a jerk than all the opposing posters who piled on (and still are, pathetically, even though the OP can’t answer them now) in that thread?
This has been one of my favorite sites over the years, but there is no “ignorance fighting” surrounding this banning - just ignorance. Mission failed 
Here’s cougar58 calling another poster a “nutter.”
cougar58 was warned several times for breaking the rules. And I think other posters have taken up the argument cougar58 was making. If so, is there a problem with the thread staying open?
So just to be clear, the contention was and the ruling was that:
(Said 8 posts and 20 hours later!)
=
Fuckin gotcha ya, I guess…
Consensus was that those posts meant that cougar58 was deliberately wishing death on Shayna? As in “I hope you die, Shayna”?
Um, am I permitted to start a Pit thread on this line of thinking and action??? Am I allowed to ask WTF?
It’s not a Pit Bull thread, it’s a cougar58 vs “SDMB pit bull / fighting dog supporters brigade” Pit thread, and 15 of the 16 pages is cougar58 going it alone against the other side, who between talking points simply attempt to deliver a ration of shit. And cougar58 was game but now cougar58 is gone and it’s an SDMB pit bull supporters gloat thread. Because clearly cougar58’s banning proves their case for fighting dogs, and ignorance has been fought. Congrats you win all the internets. And that’s why the thread should be put down.
DogsBite.org is a site for fanatics run by a fanatic. Try substituting “Jew” for “Pit Bull” & “dog” and “Stormfront” for “DogsBite”. Would we even be having this discussion?
Shayna specifically? No. The posters cougar58 was arguing against? Yes.
No. If you have a complaint or a question about moderating, it has to be posted in this forum.
I’m pretty sure you already did. 
cougar58 opened that thread in the Pit following a long GD thread. I’m sure she knew what she was in for.
There’s been little or no gloating, and a few other posters are taking up the “anti-Pit bull” argument. It looks like a live thread topic to me even though everyone is beating a dead horse.