Ditka and Great Debates

I’ve got a beef with this

First, Bone — with all due respect — I feel my quote was not edited honestly.


This is the whole thing


What you cut was the hyperbole that makes it clear that this was intended as an absurd hypothetical, one intended to highlight how ridiculous the Trump apologists have become. Now let say, what if in a thread about junk food, I told a random SDMB junk food fan:

“Hey, Random SDMB Dude, if you feed you kid a Big Mac, French fries and a large milkshake 3 times a day, your kid’s going to be obese and have horrible health problems.”

To me, this is using a exaggerated hypothetical to make point. It wouldn’t be accurate to claim I said “ Hey, Random SDMB Dude, your kids going to be obese and have horrible health problems” That would be a horrid thing to say and the omission totally changes the meaning.
i didn’t even write the post in question especially for HD, it was something I addressed to Sarah Huckabee Sanders in another forum. And I recycled.

And it seems to me that personalization is inherent in the SDMB format — someone posts something and the next person quotes that post and replies TO THEM. And I’m certainly not the first person to refer to the person they are responding to for emphasis in the body of the post.

Now, his response, which consisted of him screaming an obscenity at me and making a hurtful and derogatory comment about what he perceives to be my mental state, was definitely against forum rules. Yet…no warning?

This rubs me the wrong way because I did lose my temper with him a while back and I posted something I shouldn’t have and I got a warning. And I took it without complaint because I was in the wrong. I didn’t realize it at the time because I failed to familiarize myself with the rules and did not realize an accusation of trolling was out of bounds, but that was totally on me. And I took it like the grown-up that I am.

I am going to take the suggestion you made in the GD thread and take my other feelings about this poster to the Pit where it belongs.

But I really think there was an element of “if he feels that strongly and she pissed him off that much, she must’ve done something wrong even though I don’t see it” to your response. And I think you let him off easy in a way you seldom do.

Is the first link the one you wanted to post?


Embarrassing, I pasted the wrong post in the first link. I will find the correct one

Moderators, can you edit my OP to make this the first link


Somehow I ended up pasting post 30 instead of post 237. My iPad is always doing weird stuff I don’t understand

Well, he just had a kid, so maybe he’s just very sensitive.

I don’t know why you got the mod note, though – it’s totally clear you weren’t personalizing the post, at least to me.


OK, that makes a bit more sense.

shrugs AFAICT Bone handled it appropriately. Neither of you got a Warning. Don’t personalize arguments (to you) and dial back the rhetoric (to him). What I found more unfortunate than what either of you said was the gloating about “finally we found something that struck a nerve”.

It is on the record that HurricaneDitka has a newborn daughter, his first, and no doubt he is under the kind of stress that new parents usually get. You picked a particularly bad time to make the kind of exaggeration you did, even if it wasn’t intentional.

Your idea of taking it to the Pit is probably a good one. He doesn’t post there, so you can vent to your heart’s content and don’t have to worry that you might get back as good as you gave.


When you quote a post by HD at the beginning of your reply, then start a sentence with “HD, if you want to…” you should not be surprised that the casual reader would think you were directing your comments at “HD” in particular. And you didn’t talk about “a kid”, you talked about “your kid”. Pretty much everything about that post looked to me like you were talking directly to him.

I concur with this.

My assumption is that you are referring topost #236 rather than the one you linked. Is that correct? This quote was in response to BobLibDem’s comment that your post was aimed at right wing people in general rather than him specifically. It was edited in 4 ways:
[li]ellipsis to isolate specific parts[/li][li]bolding to isolate specific words[/li][li]sizing to isolate specific words[/li][li]ommitting a carriage return[/li][/ol]
Given the response was intended to illustrate how the comments were directed in the specific rather than the general, emphasizing the particular words is in line with the intent. The question is does it run afoul of the rules? Here are the rules regarding quotes.

Typically the “attribted to real SDMB” user is done through the quote tags, and the user name. In this instance there is no name attributed to the quote, though it is clear HD is attributing the quote to you. Looking at the quote itself, there are no editorial comments added, no words changed, and the substantive meaning is unaffected.

If I were an editor I would not omit the carriage return, and I would choose either font size or bold, but not both. But those are editorial choices, not a rules violation per se.

Responding to each of the three portions:

Personalization that addresses a poster’s argument or comments is fine. Implying that someone’s child is going to turn into a horrid monster is not the same type of personalization. If your intent wasn’t to talk about HD’s child, I would accept that explanation and is the basis for a note rather than a warning. Reading it favorably that’s why it was only a note.

Obscenities are not forbidden in Elections, though cursing at other posters is not going to go over well. In this instance, the cursing was for emphasis. “Delusions” however is a wobbler in my view, depending on context.

As for seldom letting things slide - I disagree. In most instances I try to construe as favorably as is reasonable to the poster. I’d much rather give notes than warnings and except for cases of accusations of trolling or lying which I take a more bright line approach, my first reaction is to leave notes rather than warnings and that’s the approach I took here.

I’m not going to push it, but I never meant to imply that HD’s kid was going to be a monster, because I laid out a whole bunch of ridiculously absurd conditions that would have to occur before that happened. I thought I explained that very well. I mean, if I say that

If Bone comes into 20 Billion dollars, takes up body-building, wins the New York Marathon and designs the first hotel on the moon, he’ll be dating a supermodel — that doesn’t imply that I think you’ll be dating a supermodel anytime soon. :smiley:

And I guess the real reason I’m posting this is that while I seriously dislike the dude and just laid into him in a Pit thread, calling his kid a monster would be way over the line, even for me. And I do want everyone to know that — I have nothing against his child.

That’s really white of you.

Fuck that noise. If stress was an excuse for what should be warnings to be softballed to notes:
a) the mods would need some kind of way of verifying the truth of the stressor
b) a lot of existing warnings would have to be reconsidered. I mean, my first warning was when my 2yo was in the ICU - is that stressful enough? I certainly didn’t plead diminshed responsibility then and wouldn’t now.

It’s a stupid and dangerous precedent to set, IMO. Ditka chooses to post here even if he’s “stressed”. What happened to personal responsibility?

I think it is incredibly obvious that the original post is written in general terms, and clearly is not directed specifically at one posters kid in particular. Good old fashioned common sense makes that very easy to see.

Thats just my opinion but I can completely see why the OP is annoyed about that sequence of events.

On the topic of rude language …

What does this even mean?

Really? When someone writes: “HD, if you want to love your kid like you love America, here are some ground rules.” don’t you think the fact that he’s called out by name would at least make it questionable as to whether it was directed at the generic poster as opposed to, you know, the poster who is called out by name? You really think it’s “clearly not directed” at that poster, and therefore not at his kid?

Seems to me if you want to be clear about a post being generic, you don’t call a specific poster out by name.

I’m open to the argument that there are different ways to read it, but I can’t see how you can say that it “clearly” should be read only one way.

Moderator Note

Don’t make comments like this in ATMB. You should know better by now.

It is a fairly well-known older expression. For obvious reasons these days it is used almost exclusively by people desiring to stir up drama.

Seemed to me that HD’s response was way, way over the line, and his stress level IRL shouldn’t really factor into it.

I’d invite you to think back to your mental state at the time, and imagine your reaction to, let’s say, a self-proclaimed “social Darwinist” who offered up the opinion that we should let such children live or die without medical treatment, to improve the gene pool. That’s an opinion that (while I certainly don’t share) that would be legitimate fodder for debate in GD, divorced from any specific child, but if mentioned in a reply to your post about your hospitalized child, might provoke from you an angry response under the not unreasonable belief that the thought involved your specific child.



I think that there are many times that a post that is well within the rules in Great Debates can provoke an angry response. That happens to me when some says that anyone that holds a specific belief that I hold is mentally ill, and I frequently feel it’s directed personally at me and my family.

Maybe we should have a way for people that are angry and want to deliver an angry or strong response to do this without breaking any rules.

Oh, wait…we do.

That why we have a forum called The BBQ Pit.