Thanks! Everyone likes a good “kudos!” from time to time. I’m no different.
But I did answered that directly in the post right before yours.
Do I get to keep the “Good job!”?
Well, as with so many other things, you are wrong about this. I never suggested that we all tried to get banned just to get attention (there are so many other ways that attention-whores can get their fix without being banned, as you well know).
What I was proposing was that those who are quite bothered by these new rules (and there appear to be a lot of us) take some sort of collective action–only as drastic as need be–to see if we can convince Ed to see the error of his ways. I suspect that he has a far better grasp of what the real issue is here (psssst… it’s NOT the word ‘cunt’) than you do, but that doesn’t mean that he will reverse his poor policy decision.
One would hope it would never come to the point of mass bannings of established posters to get the Board back the way it was. But so far, 1000’s of posts complaining rather strongly about the new policy has not seemed to affect TPTB.
I was simply making some suggestions about ways that “civil disobedience” type actions may (or may not) be effective. I also advocated that any such measures be carefully considered before acted upon, but you either couldn’t understand that, or chose to be a prick anyway.
Consider yourself abused.
Noted.
But your answer is nonsense, almost microcephalic. Do you somehow suppose that your individually answering 50-odd posters with an equal number of posts indicates that support for the new rules is actually level?
Yes, and it’s clear that you don’t participate much in the Pit. (I actually checked–5 threads you participated in 2008) What you’ve seen here is nothing compared to the roasting you would have gotten if the old Pit rules were in play. And it’s one of the reasons that I liked the old rules. People that posted poor arguments or only had troll bait as their arguments would get roasted if they didn’t increase the level of their arguments. You got away with a lot because of the uncertainty regarding the rules.
And another comment showing that you weren’t involved in what happened in the Pit. This was a show of frustration, not a persecution complex. These random rules had been affecting people in the Pit for months.
Oddly, you were the one who threw out the unemployed comment. Since you’ve apologized, could that have been written in the heat of the moment? In anger for feeling like everyone in this thread was picking on you and you wanted to get back?
Here’s one of the newest updates from Ed:
It varies from your view, it seems. Perhaps you now want to be advocating no new rules.
Oh, and you’re an idiot.
Having posted many times in the minority position here, I can assure you that the response you got was not solely because you took the minority position. Your posts have been taunting, condescending and baiting. That’s what drew fire.
If you had a clear, coherent position that was in the minority, there are many people here that would try to listen. You didn’t post a clear and coherent position.
So since that does indeed seem to be the case for at least some of us Pitizens, I’m not really sure what more we can do to ‘ease the rebellion’ issues for you. I feel strongly about this place retaining its flavor, not because I ever post any “fuck you cunt!” remarks to anyone (except once, if I recall correctly), but because the heart of the Pit IS more thought-provoking than any other forum.
In my humble opinion, the categories that could somewhat serve the same function as here, fall short. Great Debates seems to be the same people covering the same pedantic ground. In IMHO, you can’t really call out (and I don’t even mean in a vulgar sense) someone on blatant, disengenuous bullshit. That leaves only MPSIMS, which while definitely for the better expression of ourselves, you really can’t very well debunk a Holocaust denier well.
Because sometimes it’s necessary to go directly to the source and not mince words, whether you do that politely or not. Hence I’m a huge advocate for both civility and free speech. Do I think the criticism of the staff here got out of hand? Yes, but that’s been corrected by moving any discussion of such to ATMB. Is there any other good reason to prevent others from behaving as needed when the occasion calls for it? Not that I can see. Certainly keep profanity out of the titles too. There’s nothing wrong with that. But please, allow us to have Come to Jesus meetings with each other when we must and let’s continue to acknowledge we’re all of the emotional maturity to do that. Else we wouldn’t have signed up in the first place.
And reported too, knowing you and your petty ways. You really have a hard-on for me, don’t you? Suppose you put it away–you’re making the other needle-dicks snicker and point.
But why don’t you just give it a rest? Since you can’t handle the rough-housing that sometimes occurs among rancorous adults perhaps you might enjoy a comfortable Kiddie Approved rainbows-and-unicorns message board with built-in Net Nanny where you can build castles and tunnels in the sandbox and safely brown-nose to your black heart’s content while mommy holds your pasty, sweaty little claw?
Do be a good little boy and run along–here’s a sweet and a penny-whistle. Let the grown-ups carry on, now… THERE’s a good lad!
While I don’t give a rat’s ass about a “cunt” or a “fuck” here or there (whatever font and point you want and pointed at me in the Pit is just fine too) I find it amusing to hear the need to express oneself in those terms in order to insult other posters as evidence of your adulthood. I guess going to the adult bookstore really proves your maturity too!
Ahhh… splendid! A sandbox playmate for little raindog! I did fear I might have been a bit harsh sending him away all alone. I’ll let your mum know that Ms. Poppins can look after the both of you.
Hopefully said sandbox is one in which the local stray cats all piss.
Of course not!
Is that the point of my posting----or anyone else’s------ that there must be numerical parity before one can offer a dissenting voice?
Further, does the sheer volume of posters add merit to a weak argument? Of course not.
That’s downright silly. Ray Charles could see the numbers in that thread. Yet poster after poster offered a variation of the theme that the pit rules were unfair. I would have been quite content to let others who shared my views shoulder the countering views, yet few did. In fact, if there was some fair representation of a countering view I would likely have not posted at all.
I will reiterate: Even Ed Zotti----whose vision I imagine is assumed to be worse than Ray Charles----figured out by page 6 or so that there was widespread discontent. Apparently you have no problem with the resulting 14 pages of warmed over hysteria.
I simply made sure that while there was wide spread acceptance of the views held by the majority, that sheer popularity didn’t turn that sow’s ear into a silk purse.
That concept is hardly new, and I always chuckle when someone posts that in Latin in GD.
The quality of my argument wasn’t weakened by the frequency in which I posted in that thread, any more than yours was strengthened by it’s popularity.
How do you define “fair representation”, then? There are, in fact, other posters (albeit only a few) in that thread who, in general, agree with you. What makes your posts so special that they should be assumed by all of us opposing to be a sow’s ear?
I don’t have any need to prove anything to you.
But I posted 51 times in your playground, and I started this thread.
You know that, right?
You know, the funny thing is that I have no hard on for you. There’s a handful of posters whose posts I like, and yours is one of them. I thought you were/are all wet on this subject and so I posted to that effect. Granted, it was snarky and sarcastic (but not abusive to you or anyone else) and I make no apology for that.
Standard operating procedures is that we go the Pit and make enemies—to call each other all kinds of vile names and say the most banal, stupid things. I submit it is you who can’t handle the rough housing, if the best you can do to me calling you out in the ATMB and this OP is come hurl a bunch of vile names at me.
Its. I don’t care how much smarmy ass-kissing Eddie Haskell drivel you post – but do not put a fucking apostrophe in that word, you ignorant asshole. It’s “its”, not “it’s”, numbnuts. Possessive pronoun.
<sigh> Can I be your groupie? <bats eyelashes at Giraffe> I think I love you.
If Ed’s decision is/was to be made on sheer popularity----which is one valid consideration than I should have remained quite. The posters are Ed’s constituents—one group of them actually.
I don’t believe that popularity is, or should be, the main consideration in whether he implements his proposed rules or not. I think that the other views were misrepresented, grossly exaggerated and often absurd.
They are simply my views. They may be special only to me, or to others who may voice their approval in some fashion. Some may be lurkers.
I’m making my argument, in support of the proposed rules. If someone wishes to say they’re sow’s ears, great. Let’s talk—and it’s Ok if we’re snarky or sarcastic.
But name calling and other nonsense is the last vestige of the tired mind, in my view.
Ah. Well, I am, in fact, tired. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll remember to add you to my “Who gives a fuck,” list, but, for now, “Good night, asshole.”
Good night. Rest up. I’m taking your spleen out tomorrow.
I have to ask: why are so many Dopers feeding this troll? He is beside himself with joy at all this attention.
(I no longer remember if we can call another poster that or not. If not, I will gladly change the word to something else, like attention whore.)
You know this is as good as any to share a curiosity I’ve had for a long time about the Pit
There’s this scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon and and a Harvard guy----2 very, very bright guys----are trading barbs. At a certain point, Matt Damon steps closer and in a soft voice suggests they can go outside into the alley and “work it out.” Of course, the Harvard guy backs down post haste. Now that’s taking the game straight to him!
The problem is that message boards offer no such certain end game. And so it seems downright juvenile to me to see the veiled warning like the one Heffalump and Roo issued about how I might have “roasted” in the old Pit.
Huh?
Matt Damon and the Harvard guy had as one option to really put their testosterone to the test. We have no equivalent here. There is nothing mentally or physically taxing in calling each other “cunt!” or the litany of names that are bandied about. It requires no brains, no intellect, no wit, not even a command of grammar or syntax. It’s so limiting that we’re limited to changing font sizes to get the upper hand, for Pete’s sake. The boldest and baddest among us add “sycophantic” and the like before “cunt!”.
And that’s being tough?
I can’t count how many times----including this thread----where it has been proposed that real men------from the comfort of their heated living rooms----beat each other up on message boards, and those who can’t handle it are Mormon choir boys.
Boys and girls, we have only have 2 things to beat each other up with: our muscles and our brains. I must admit that there have been a time or 2 when someone made the type of comment Scissorjack made and I’d wished we were at Binger’s Bar in downtown Dayton so we could go outside and “work it out.” But that’s not an option.
We’re left with out brains, and it is infinitely harder to go 6 rounds with someone with wit, sarcasm, intelligence and good sense of humor than 12 rounds with someone who reaches for “you sycophantic cunt” in their second or third post.
It is mentally challenging to keep your composure and go toe to toe over a set of ideas without losing sight of the underlying argument because you lost composure and started hurling names.
We only have our brains to fight with. That’s it. The moment you lose composure, you lose. The moment you lose sight of the underlying argument----and abandon it to run to rank name calling----you’ve lost.
The fact is, even without a moral basis, I would object to Heffalump and Roo’s post (which I assume was full of internet testosterone) and consider it nonsense because it endeavors to take the easiest route to victory, not the hardest.
If you reach for the name calling, you’ve already showed your hand. You lose, and I’ll promptly ignore you. (all official like)
If you’ve got some ideas you want to “work out”—and you’ve got the clarity of mind, a compelling argument, wit, and sarcasm, let’s hear it.
Or, if you’re ever in Dayton, Ohio, the first beer will be on me.