I was wrong about you:



The linked posts provide evidence of unambiguous, level-headed, and fair moderation. My apologies.

Gonna take a lot more than that to put DavidB in the running for king.

<Attention Whores, Take 1>

*Mummy, mummy, Collounsbury’s getting all the sweets and I’m not getting any ! Mummy, mummy, you don’t listen to meeeeeee Mummy, I need to go to the toilet . . . .

Are we nearly there yet, Mummy ?*

</Attention Whores, Take 1>

I don’t understand; what’s the complaint against David B? Is there a complaint?

Why does Libertarian have a british accent?

For the same reason Madonna has one.

Yeah, and Esprix has queen all tied up.

More to the point, why is Collunsbury getting all the sweets?

Because he’s a neo-colonial, imperialist, capitalist oppressor of the people?

Fools ! Libertarians can determine their own accents, rather than have them foist upon them and persuant to the exploitative geo-political agenda of the nanny State.

Um, I think the complaint is that he closed a thread which was just a self-link to a sprawling article which contained no real debating points. Then, he allowed a thread which started with an actual response to that article to stay open. This “complaint” blows.

Unless my sarcasm detector is very very broken… But I doubt that.

I think this is the thread in which a complaint about David B was made:

Another clueless newbie bites the dust: a chronology of doom -or- Thank you, DavidB

It seems that Lib has changed his opinion and is apologising for his previous criticism.

Um, actually, I think Lib’s apology was sarcastic.

But maybe it wasn’t.

Considering Libertarian’s history of complaints about David B, I initially took it as sarcasm, too; however, I wasn’t understanding Libertarian’s implied complaint (if there was one)–thus my request for clarification.

But as Neurotik just said, maybe it wasn’t sarcasm.

Well, since it’s in the pit, I’m assuming it’s sarcasm.

It is just what it is: recognition of my own error in judgment about David. Sorry, no sarcasm or parody this time. I was wrong, and I felt moved to express my apology to him.

And so, with that post by Lib, the members of this board have collectively learned a few important lessons:[ul]
[li]Kal was right.[/li][li]Golly gee, was Kal right.[/li][li]There was not a single drop of incorrectitude in Kal’s post.[/li][li]Smart as he is, Kal’s claim to be Cecil’s bastard son must be true.[/li][/ul]

Kal - The slightly chubby sex-god. Who was right, damnit!

I have nothing against DavidB personally. I don’t really know him well enough.

I don’t think I would close a thread and then allow another thread on that same subject unless the OP of the second thread made sense on its own.

Not a bad instinct, Zoe – it doesn’t happen often. I won’t speak for DavidB, of course, but if I were to make an unofficial guess, I’d say he did it to try to show the OP of the original thread how we do do things here and draw him into an actual on-board debate. Also, we do have something of a soft spot for people who have taken the time to compose lengthy, intelligent responses to, uh, lesser posts. I’ve taken a lot of my lessons from DavidB, and it’s what I might do.


Who’s this Kal person again? :wink: