OK, this definitely sounds like classic snark board shit-stirring. I don’t see why I have to take this shit seriously with this kinda stuff going on.
And as Arnold conveniently forgot to mention, I also mentioned later in the same snarkboard thread that it was a joke expressing frustration that I was being piled on, and I explicitly asked people not to turn this into some sort of snarkboard attack. I decided to post this on my own, not as a representative of anyone else and without the help of anyone else.
It’s entirely incorrect to claim that this is some sort of snarkboard trolling, which is essentially the accusation you’re making against me. I’m not quite sure why people in this thread immediately resorted to ad hominems, but while what Arnold said was literally true - that I posted a request for help - my request was a joke, and Arnold is being deceptive and inaccurately describing the situation in claiming otherwise.
The policy of the SDMB is not to allow or encourage board wars.
Before this turns into a board war, I’m going to close it. I’m notifying the admins and Pit mods that I’ve done so. It’s possible that one of them will decide it can safely be re-opened. Or not.
I’m going to reopen this. If the thread devolves into a discussion of who said what on another board I’ll close it again, but for now I see no reason not to let the discussion continue.
(Man, when I’m here it’s nothing but “I stubbed my pinky toe!” and “I Pit kittens for being sooo fuzzy!” I leave town for a week and immediately all sorts of exciting stuff happens.)
Couldn’t make this stuff up, folks.
[sub]…damn kittens, all smug and fuzzy…[/sub]
Well, yeah. I pitted the guy, which I guess is some sort of moral outrage. And I immediately got buried under a lot of unfair accusations. I am certainly not trying to start a board war. I have absolutely nothing against people who are into bondage. I got accused of being “intolerant” and “close-minded” (by CandidGamera) of something that not only do I not oppose, but actually have been known to enjoy. A lot of people decided not to discuss the issue at all but accuse me of instigating a board war or of being intolerant of folks with an interest in bondage. And both of those things are blatant falsehoods. Which is not to even start on This Year’s Model and the pack of lies he decided to post, claiming that he knows how I really feel about the SDMB.
I don’t care if everyone disagrees with me, but assigning me motives and making up complete falsehoods about my intentions strikes me as pretty unfair and vastly outside of the realm of productive discussion. The fact that two people may disagree on something does not make it necessary to invent false reasons to hate your opponent.
That wasn’t moral outrage. It was amusement. Or maybe merely bemusement. Backfired Pittings often strike me that way.
You’ve been very eloquent, not to mention prolific, in your condemnations of the Dope, Excalibre, so no huge leap was needed.
By all means continue to wax wroth. It’s what the Pit is for.
But danged if the melodrama isn’t amusing in spots.
The motives and intentions assigned you are based on the evidence. If the shoe fits, just shut the hell up before you make things worse.
Secondly, “productive discussion”? Isn’t this the Pit?
No, I was referring to the generalized moral outrage, not yours in particular.
Again, that’s simply not true. I was quite clear that I’m unhappy with the Google ads. And that’s it. TVeblen, I’m beginning to sense that you don’t like me much, which is a surprise because I seem to recall having a fairly cordial relationship with you in the past. And I certainly never had a problem with you as a moderator. But what you’re claiming is simply not true. I do not have a career of launching complaints about this place; I’m sure I’ve complained about one issue or another from time to time, as a lot of people have. But if I hated this place, I wouldn’t hang out here. It’s pure falsehood to claim that I’ve been “prolific” in condemning this place.
Possibly. But “almost unanimously” might be overstating it. I was not the only one to voice the minority opinion in that thread.
Would it be safe to say that you post about your displeasure with the boards much less frequently than EC posts about his slavegirl fetish, both in absolute (# of posts) and relative (% of your posts) terms?
Because I find it interesting that nobody takes issue with that characterization of you, but so many are eager to take issue with your (and my) characterization of EC.
Absolutely. And it’s something I’d wryly observed to myself earlier - if This Year’s Model has decided that my mentioning that I don’t like the Google ads is a condemnation of the dope, shouldn’t he also claim that Evil Captor posts about bondage without remit?
I don’t know why people are claiming that I have something against this place. Maybe This Year’s Model said it and TVeblen just believes his take on the situation, but both of them are quite obviously wrong.
Lest your martyr complex become too severe, let me correct my statement. I didn’t notice that other post, but then again it wasn’t posted under your name, but anonymously, and the format of the other board makes it easy for me, not very familiar with the system, to miss posts.
But yes, you did say later on that you weren’t calling for reinforcements, just wondering at the lack of support for your position.
I fear we’re treading into the realm of discussing things that happened off the board, and I believe that discussing what happens on the snark board is in violation of the rules. For next time, let’s merely say that one of the many reasons not to drag off-board occurences over here is the fact that if you don’t understand the context of what’s happening on the other board, you may inadvertently misrepresent the facts and thus lead people to misconceptions about the situation.
If it makes you feel any better, I feel they are equally without merit.
Which is why, if we believe your story that you would have pitted Evil Captor even without the snark board people egging one of their crowd on to start a trainwreck, it was pretty stupid of you to start this thread immediately after another thread was closed on the same subject. Knowing that you post at the snark board, some people (I for one) might believe that you started this to fan the flames while they were hot, and while the people at the other board are cackling about it.
[hijack, cont’d.]
Maureen, my post #171 was in response to your post #163. **Excalibre **had also responded to that with her post #166. While I was composing my post #171, you were simultaneously composing a response to Excalibre’s post #166. That response to you, #170, was posted just three minutes before my post #171. It took me longer than three minutes to compose that post, so while I was writing it I had not yet seen your response to the same issue in Excalibre’s post. Your post #170 appeared only *AFTER *I had composed my post #171.
In your immediate post after this exchange, #172, you stuck your foot in your mouth by patronizingly and rudely accusing me of not having read your post before I responded. Anyone who noted the time between the two posts—less than three minutes—would be more likely to conclude that this was probably an example of near simulposting rather than an oversight on my part.
The stupidity of your post, coupled with the fact that you failed to note which post, and which poster, you were addressing, led me to ask for clarification. (Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, mind.) With your next response, post #176, you jammed your other foot in your mouth—still not having noticed that it was probably a simulpost and not an oversight—and piled on another layer of rudeness and sarcasm.
This unwarranted tone of patronizing superiority when, all the while, YOU were the one who was guilty of an oversight, not me. Hence my anger, in response to your sarcasm and stupidity, when I pointed out your asswipery.
Now, perhaps if I had not sunk to your level of rudeness and insult, and instead had pointed out your error more politely, you might not have taken it a step further down the ladder. You might have responded, as any decent human being might have, by saying, *“Oh my god I’m so embarrassed. I didn’t notice the time stamp. If I had I would have realized that your post was more likely a simulpost than an oversight! I’m so sorry for being so rude when in fact I was the one who was not paying attention. How embarrassing!” *
When, instead, you came back by responding only to my namecalling, rather than to the actual content of my post, I grew even angrier and ratcheted up the namecalling another notch.
The lesson I’ve learned from this, Maureen, is to renew my commitment to allow other posters to stupidly stick their feet in their mouth without letting their stupidity anger me and draw me down to their level.
To everyone *else *reading this thread, I apologize for allowing myself to turn Maureen’s pompous stupidity into a contest of escalating namecalling, Pit or no Pit.
I also apologize for the extra roughage that this hijack, including this post, has added to this thread.
[/hijack]
I posted this thread because inkleberry posted one, and it got closed. Since I felt the same way, I decided to post one instead. Until I saw inkleberry’s reference to the snark board, I hadn’t been paying much attention lately. It’s not a place that I spend a great deal of time. Obviously I attach my name to what I say on the snark board, which I do to make it clear that I’m not there out of any underhanded purpose - anyone who sees it can tell if I said it. I stand by what I say, on this board and off of it, and I’ve never so much as made a one-line reply because of something that happened on the other board. I posted because of what happened here - inkleberry’s quickly-closed pitting. I felt that at issue was Evil Captor’s behavior, not the merits of the anonymous board. I’m sorry that most of the rest of you decided to talk about that instead.
The only way you know that I’m one of the anon crowd, Arnold, is because I’m perhaps the only semi-frequent poster there who signs his messages with his SDMB handle. Anyone might be posting anything in response to something that on that message board or another that you and I might not even know about. However, you can tell how much I personally am involved, because you can see what I posted there. If anyone else posts a pit thread, you don’t know what motivated it. But in my case, I use my name over there. So you can see that I didn’t post this on behalf of the snark board. In this case, you actually had the tools at hand to see if I was part of some conspiracy on the other board, and if you’d taken an honest look, you would have seen that I wasn’t. I didn’t post in that thread until I posted this one. If the idea is that everyone who posts there is under automatic suspicion whenever they post here, then make that clear. If not, then what? Does everything spoken about on the snark board automatically become verboten over here? You’re giving that place a lot more power if you decide that the snark board gets to dictate who can participate and what they can talk about over here. You could have taken me at my word, as well - I’ve been honest the whole time. It wasn’t necessary to try to start an indictment of the snark boards over this.
Believe it or not, it’s not a gigantic conspiracy. It’s a bunch of people talking about the SDMB. Like we do here a lot of the time, as a matter of fact. And like people do on a lot of websites.
You’re welcome.
I wasn’t offended; I just get tired of the unnecessary snark on these boards sometimes.