Give the man a binky!
It’s not a big deal, quit being a baby about it.
Since this is the pit and haven’t really noticed the requisite number of curse words, let me just say FUCK!!!*
I hope you aren’t implying that I have engaged in calling you names. The reason for my suggestion in emailing a moderator is that it would have (likely) precluded you from having to start a post in The Pit (where issues/complaints regarding moderators are done - hence the movement of your other thread from ATMB to the Pit), and possibly opening you up for criticism and/or ridicule. Not that it would have been deserved; it’s just that threads in The Pit allows others to “draw out their knives”, so to speak. Plus, it also has the added problem of irritating the mods once they have addressed the issue sufficiently (in their eyes), and the issue continues to be argued over.
Once the mods have sufficiently addressed the issue, it’s pointless in continuing to press it. By doing so it gives the impression (however unjustly it may seem) that you are being argumentative for argument’s sake.
In short - the mods have the final word. Don’t like it? Fine - start a thread in the Pit. But keep in mind that if you do, then you open yourself to criticism and/or ridicule. If you don’t want to open yourself up to criticism and/or ridicule, then email a mod first. Hence, my original suggestion.
Note: The above is given in the spirit of advice, nothing more.
I have to admit, I don’t get what Cranny’s on about. If someone makes a joke, or appreciates a joke, it displays a bias because some people somewhere take the subject seriously? I don’t much care if a million or more people believe Jews caused the Sept.11 attacks. They’re idiots deserving of ridicule, and ridicule (well, irreverance) is what this board does best. Do you actually believe the person who made the initial comment was serious? If so, you should leave this board immediately and not return until you develop a sense of irony. You could start by watching an entire season of Seinfeld. If not, I predict you will face endless ridicule because there are plenty of people here who do understand irony and will needle you for their own amusement. I personally expect to among that crowd, symbolic pitchfork and torch in hand.
Relevant quotes:
Your problem, not ours.
Well, poor you. You’ve met a lot of idiots and it’s damaged your fragile soul. There there. There there.
So… the proper thing to do is shriek and wail, or something?
Well, large parts of the world are populated by idiots.
Exactly. Idiots.
Thanks for the ethics lesson. This message board, as far as I can tell, operates on the assumption that ignorance is commonplace. That boards exist that perpetuate ignorance is shocking to absolutely no-one, except you. What exactly are you proposing this board do about it? Clamp down on its membership? Stifle any comment of something that might be misconstrued by somebody, somewhere?
“Firestorm”… that’s hilarious. You’ve got an ego as big as all outdoors, don’t you? Had you not started these two threads complaining about the rather tepid reaction your initial (irrelevant) comment received, it would have been forgotten by now. Well, congratulations. You’re getting attention paid to you. It’s derisive sarcastic attention, but I guess any kind of validation will serve.
Well, those firestorms are tricky. Sometimes they sneak up on you by being completely invisible!
Wow. That’s mighty white of you.
Well, if it does, the mods can close the thread or move it to the Pit. That’s why they get paid the big bucks.
The only GQ threads I can find with “al-Jazeera” in the titles are two from 2003 which were asking questions about it’s content and whether or not its website had been shut down (the consensus was a temporary denail-of-service attack). I can’t find any thread on any forum with the title you describe. If such a GQ thread with that title you ever existed, it must have been moved and renamed. I call “bullshit!” on you until you provide supporting evidence of your claim.
Well, if past experience is any guide, such a thread would be moved to GD or the Pit as soon as a moderator became aware of it. I don’t see an al-Jazeera thread of similar premise being treated any differently (assuming such a thread ever existed, which I find doubtful because your personal credibility is low), so your accusaion of bias is meaningless.
It’s still not established that al-Jazeera is considered fundamentalist by anyone on this board, let alone the moderators. Even if it is, so what? A thread about the biasses of al-Jazeera would be comfortably at home in GD or (if the discussion became overly acerbic) the Pit. Why should it be in GQ?
The act of asking a loaded question betrays a bias. Asking a question generally does not. In fact, if one were to ask an innocent question and the response was an immediate “You only ask that because you believe in such-and-such” it would a clear sign of bias on the part of the respondant, not the inquisitor.
And this is bad because… we should be protecting people from having to see debates, or something?
Before this gets even further afield, I feel compelled to point out that if the deaths or Afghan children were irrelevant to the initial GQ thread, the political bias of the al-Jazeera network is in a completely alternate dimension.
Well, you’re wrong. “Debate in GQ” is a contradiction in terms, since GQ is a forum meant for purely factual discussions. If you wanted a discussion on the possible bias of al-Jazeera, by all means debate it in GD.
Would you be shocked if I told you that there is no formal checklist or statistical algorithm to objectively answer that question, and that it is left to the discretion of the moderators? If so, you’d better put on your rubber boots, because that happens to be the case.
What moves such a thread to GD (or the Pit) is that the administrators of this board feel that it is inappropiate for GQ to have threads which boil down to matters of opinion, which your Fox example certainly would. The political culture of most of us on this board is not relevant to that policy.
Why do you have such a hard-on for GQ, anyway? Is it really so shocking that forum discussions get sorted into major categories, which are a bit subjective? Grow the fuck up, get lost, or brace yourself for endless ridicule (to which I’ll be happily contributing at times).
You might like to try the link Rufus posted. I regard the rest of your comments about me to be of the same quality as your search capability.
You’ll note that someone did indeed compare the station to Fox News (although there’s no explanation of why this might be and it’s just stated as a pure political opinion with nothing to back it up) and that that didn’t get flagged as a political statement likely to cause debate. I don’t see this happening with commentary about an American network with which most of us would be more familiar, and that’s where my questions about how these judgement calls are being made come in.
The reason I started this thread with the sentence that I was only posting my questions here because I couldn’t anywhere else is because I wanted to discuss the topic without people callking each other idiots and so forth all of the live-long day. Apparently some of you live for that.
GQ interests me because that sort of crap isn’t considered acceptable, and because I’m not so interested in rehashing tired debates about abortion or the number of angels on the head of a pin. GQ is closest in nature to the original spirit of the SD column, which I thought was what brought people here. Supposedly we all have a “hard on” for it, right? For some reason I’ll never understand some of you would rather spend all day calling each other poopy-heads in the Pit, which strikes me as wallowing in ignorance, and to this point I’ve avoided this portion of the boards completely.
So, no, to those suggesting it, I am not “enjoying” your “attentions” unless you wish to address the issues civilly.
Because it’s obvious that some subjectivity comes into play in deciding when GQ should go to GD [essentially fact-supported debate in many cases vs purely opinion-driven debate], and because I’ve seen a general tendancy in (and I keep saying this but I suppose people aren’t reading this very carefully) an unintentional bias driven by a dominant political culture in what gets flagged as straying from GQ territory and what doesn’t, I posted some Qs about it. Unfortunately only a few people seem to able to respond to that without making personal attacks on me, ironically usually stating that I’m some sort of crybaby for asking the questions. Essentially, “You’re immature, you doody-head!” No one sees the irony in this?
The early mod responses to of the Qs I raised were largely dismissive, varied (at one point all straying and politics was banned from GQ, at other points only if the topic were contraversial, at no point do we discuss “contraversial to whom”), and insulting. At points there was a consistent yardstick being applied which no one really wanted to define, at other times the argument has been that there hasn’t been one but that was just too bad and I should suck it up. Which is it? All of this had to be framed as my personalty disorders and lack of intelligence. Things got worse in sticking up for myself. This is how you people fight ignorance?
Why some of you feel the need to circle the wagons on this instead of having a potentially fruitful discussion about defining standards is beyond me. As I stated before, anyone wanting to do that I’m more than happy to have a give and take with.
I didn’t want that number, someone else did. If the OP was answered and straying from that is banned in GQ, then why are peope discussing Jewish names in an unlocked thread? Again, someone’s using some sort of standard for this call and it doesn’t seem out of line to ask what.
As far as the forum goes, I’d prefer not to bother with the Pit at all but this is where it was sent.
Cry me a fucking river. You gave the title of the thread as “Is al-Jazeera pro-fundamentalist?” when in the actual title, the name was given as “Aljazeera”. The search engine does not (yet) make allowances for spelling mistakes (his) or transcribing errors (yours).
The thread itself was lightly-attended and has already fallen off the front page, languishing (as of this writing) all the way back on page 5. I had to change my display settings just to find it. That the thread wasn’t moved out of GQ is almost certainly due to the fact that no moderator knew about it. The timespan between the first post and the last post is less than two hours, after which the thread plunged down the list and subsequently out of sight. Unless a moderator happened to be on during that brief window, or had the thread reported to him via e-mail, it surprises me not at all that it was missed. Unlike you, I don’t expect the moderators to put their own lives on hold while they police every corner of the board.
I withdraw my claim of “bullshit!” having been shown that the thread in question actually exists (though your failure to link to it or even spell the title correctly nullifies any claim you might make about my searching abilities). This is no way validates any of the crybaby whining you’ve been doing.
I consider it a public service to call an idiot an idiot, rather than attempt to validate his idiocy. As for what started this thread, I thought that was the title advising us to “Don’t dare ask a moderator what ‘political’ means’”, which implies that we would be victimized in the way you claim you have been victimized. Trouble is, you haven’t been victimized; the vast majority of us understand why political discussion is discouraged in GQ; and few of us feel compelled to analyze the reasons for that discouragement.
“That sort of crap” isn’t acceptable in GD, either. I fail to see why you fail to see this. There are numerous non-abortion, non-angel-dancing threads in GD. Yours could be one of them. That this is apparantly unacceptable to you is a mystery to me.
If I had to pick which was closest to the spirit of the Straight Dope column, I suppose I’d also pick GQ. So what? By that logic, discussion of the U.S. Constitution could only take place in Philadelphia.
Well, you picked a heck of a Pit debut, sport. I can’t speak for others, but I tend to wander from GQ to GD to the Café to the Pit, posting anywhere that interests me. I don’t have a problem (well, not any more) keeping factual matters, opinion pieces, arts/entertainment trivia and insults in their right places, those places determined by the administrators and mods of this board. If you want to discuss politics, the established norm is to do so in GD. If you want to complain about how a mod has treated you, welcome to Pitsville. If you find Pitsville to be inhospitable, because in Pitsville people who are sympathic to the mod are now free to heap oodles of profane scorn upon you, then go complain to your mommy.
Well, what issue do you want to debate? I’m losing track:
[ol][li]The need for a formal definition of “politics” in regards to what kind of duscussions are acceptable in GQ[/li][li]The combat deaths of children in Afghanistan[/li][li]The bias of the Al-Jazeera network[/ol][/li]
The only established place for (1) is the Pit (or possibly via private e-mail to the moderators, an option made available to you but unaccountably refused). In the Pit, you risk insult. Too bad. Personally, I think an effort to spell out GQ rules in detail is a waste of time, and I’m happy to let the moderators use their discretion in deciding what is too political for GQ. The stakes are simply not high enough to justify the effort. As for (2) and (3), GD is the best place. That the Al-Jazeera thread stayed in GQ is a minor oversight on the part of the mods, not evidence of negligence or favouritism.
You’re a crybaby for claiming you’ve been victimized by moderator action, when the actual “victimization” was (to exagerrate wildly) trivial. Plus the claim that a moderator was deliberately trying to make you look foolish by locking and then unlocking one of your threads… well, that’s just comical, as though the mods have nothing better to do.
Maybe you should have taken that as a hint that the mods don’t care. It’s even more entertaining to watch you claiming to be fighting a noble battle against a nonexistent opponent.
Well, up to a point. Then it just gets… sad.
Yup. Let the good times roll.
The only “circling” I see is yours. The SDMB doesn’t need defending from you. It’d be like trying to shield an aircraft carrier from a mosquito. We might chuckle at the determination of the mosquito, even egg him on, but the carrier itself sails on unimpeded.
As for a discussion: why bother? As I have already observed, this board does not represent a democracy where the posters have civil rights and the moderators are constitutionally constrained. Are you really expecting them to put in the effort of drafting some kind of master list of acceptable GQ topics? The current system of appointing mods to use their discretion is working just fine for everybody, except you. Suppose such a list was published, and then someone decided to challenge it? Then what? Amendments?
Just out of curiosity, what if no admin/mod is willing to do so? Are you gonna try to lead the proles in open revolution? Stage a walkout? Suppose you just go ahead and draft some kind of GQ Constitution and submit it to ATMB. I’m sure you’ll get all kinds of feedback.
I never actually called you a poopy-head, by the way, and neither has anyone else in this thread. Please don’t project your immaturity onto us.
Hmm, on reflection, I said a discussion of children combat deaths in Afghanistan (my point #2) should take place in GD. It could more easily fit into GQ, assuming the discussion focused solely on numbers and not reasons.
How about common sense? Or is that just too general for you? Bringing up conspiracy kook theories and making fun of them as an aside after a question has been answered is ENTIRELY different than bringing up a tangentially related topic, inserting your opinions about that topic, providing cites for it, and requesting (or at least exhibiting some interest in) a discussion regarding your brand new subject. *That * is a hijack, and that subject was definitely political in nature. How is that difficult to grasp?
As you pointed out in your OP, you’re the one with 500 posts. And you’ve been here for ~9 months. How in the world have you lasted this long without the constant need to have your hand held?
**General Questions: ** How many children were killed in Afghanistan?
**Great Debates: ** Why don’t we hear about the children killed in Afghanistan?
Cafe Society: Who produced/wrote that documentary/book about the children killed in Afghanistan?
IMHO: Anybody know any children killed in Afghanistan?
MPSIMS: Hasbro is making a Dead Afghanistan Child doll!
BBQ Pit: Why the fuck won’t Crandolph quit his incessant whining and read the goddamn forum descriptions and stickies regarding politics in General Questions before he posts yet another thread bitching about his own inability to glean the smallest of SDMB posting habits even after being a member for well over 1/2 a year?!?
Bzzt. Wrong answer. If you wanted a civilized discussion and clarification without drawing attention to your amazing ability to both type and suck your thumb at the same time, you would have posed a similar non-confrontational question in ATMB.
Well, his mastery of the skill of simultaneously sucking both thumbs makes holding his hand difficult.
Kinda icky, too.
I can’r believe that there are so few people to suck up to where you live that you need to be cybersycophants.
You migt think thay if you’re going to claim a thread about a word transliterated from the Arabic doesn’t exist, you might try throwing a spelling or hyphenation variation in before searching for the claim.
And it wasn’t unlocking the thread that was the attempt to make me look foolish, it was the snarky comment that the thread wassn’t actually locked as I’d claimed even though this happened after my post stating it was.
Dig up, Crandolph.
If you want to open a serious discussion on the topic “What is politics?” the place is Great Debates.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, what issue do you want to debate? I’m losing track:
[ol][li]The need for a formal definition of “politics” in regards to what kind of duscussions are acceptable in GQ[/li][li]The combat deaths of children in Afghanistan[/li][li]The bias of the Al-Jazeera network[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
Originally I wasn’t trying to debate anything at all (despite the initial moderator interventon), but since you’ve stopped simply name-calling and started dealing with the subjects I was bringing up:
There was a thread with discussion of how many children died in the 9/11 attacks and how it seemed odd that the media didn’t focus on that. I simply posted (with citations; people like citations around here, right?) a notation that we weren’t really talking about the kids killed in the return attacks either.
Now, whereas the OP and the discussion to that point wasn’t deemed “political,” my post was, and I find that kinda weird. Weirder still, people could stray off and discuss orther topics, including the quite political discussion of “anti-Zionist conspiracy = bad.” None of that is “political” here it’d appear. My point is that the dominant political culture has a lot of people accepting as non-contraversial background what would be seen as obviously political discussion in other climates.
I brought up the a-J thread as a recent example of one that happens to not only seem to have an obvious set of political assumptions in the asking, but which can’t get answered without injecting political opinion. Yet it stays in GQ, and that seems to be because it’s a kinda biased Q about Arabs, and we (as a society at large, I’ve made it very clear the whole time I wasn’t singling out the SDMB for any reason other than the subsequent rudeness I’ve encounter for asking some Qs) seem blind to that.
Sorry, I must have missed the memo where I was delegated to fix your mistakes and do your research for you.
What really made you look foolish was your claim that this was an attempt to make you look foolish, instead of just stating “At the time I wrote my earlier post, the thread was indeed locked. Since it’s been opened. I’ll continue my discussion over there.”
In addition to both your thumbs, how did you get both your feet in your mouth?
Actually, he’s been doing both all along. The fact that you’ve been whining incessently about the insults while completely ignoring the fact that he’s been systematically destroying your complaints is only making you look worse.
Well, for one thing, I did not see any “political” responses. I saw no one claiming that Qatar (or al Qaida or any other government or group) was controlling or determining the stories selected. I saw no one crying that al Jazeera was out to defame the West or to denigrate President Bush or the U.S. government. I did see a number of people express views regarding the way in which one might determine whether the agency was fundamentalist or why it would be so if that was determined to be the case. Most of the responses, (including yours), provided reasons why one would not judge al Jazeera to be pro-Fundamentalist and also provided supporting inforation that did not rely on subjective political judgements. While none of the comments actually provided a “purely factual” answer, the answers provided were level, non-judgemental, and backed by either facts or logic. And the thread did roll off the first page of GQ quickly enough (fewer than two hours from post to last response) to avoid being moved to IMHO. (With no serious disagreements and no interjection of politics, I would not have chosen to send it to GD had the thread run longer.)
By the same token, I would have felt no compulsion to move a thread titled “Is Fox News pro-fundamentalist?” to GD provided that the answers followed the lines of providing the percent of advertising revenue (or number of ads purchased) by various Fundamentalist Christian groups as compared to other networks, the number of stories addressing “Fundamentalist Christian” issues as compared to stories counted on other networks, the number of editorials that favored Fundamentalist Christian principles as contrasted against the editorials of other networks, or (perhaps), a list of program directors and producers at Fox who were, themselves, Fundamentalist Christians, contrasted against the demographics of other networks. Had someone posted that “of course” Fox was a “fundy” network because they slavishly adored Presidnt Bush, I’d have spun it out of there in a second.
(It is possible, of course, that the three surviving Moderators in GQ would leave it or move it based on other criteria. Humans have an infinite capacity to categorize things differently, and (most) Moderators are human.)
Leave me out of this, Euty!
I KNEW it!!! They all laughed at me when I said that TVeblen was a cyborg. Well now I have my proof. PROOF!!!
Well, at least one moderator of GQ thought your observation was irrelevant to the subject at hand (far more so than an analysis of the media coverage of the event under discussion) and told you that you were venturing into political territory, which is actively discouraged in GQ.
Feel free to do so. However, you’re taking the “weirdness” as some kind of personal attack, which only makes you look pathetic and laughable.
I got the impression that the discussion was “anti-Zionist conspiracy = ridiculous.” Calling it “bad” would be giving it too much credit and if there was to be a serious discussion on the origins of such conspiracy theories, it would be better placed in GD or even the Pit.
Irrelevant. Politics in GQ are frowned upon. Mods are human. They make judgement calls. You were (incredibly mildly) reproached (in the locked/unlocked thread, you described your interaction with DrMatrix as “a little lecture”, hardly indicative of a major correction/attack/assault/warning) and now are making a big deal about your feeling that others should have been warned also. This is not kindergarden and complaining about unfairness will not mitigate your own mistakes and earn you a consoling kiss on the forehead.
You’ve completely ignored my alternative hypothesis. That thread stays in GQ because it was so inconsequential and disappeared so quickly from the front page that it’s entirely possible no moderator knew of its existence. Unless somebody posts to it, bringing it back to the front page, I doubt any mod is going to bother moving it since it is easier to let it sink into oblivion. You can report the thread to a mod, if you like, and perhaps as a sop to your wounded feelings they’ll move the thread to GD. Or maybe they’ll just ignore the request as being completely moot.