That’s a response to an argument i never made.
Speaking of DC superheroes, Wonder Woman is an excellent example of bondage fantasies prevalent in the mainstream. Many covers of her comic book frequently show her tied up by her own lasso by men and women alike. I recall one such bondage cover where she was tied to a buoy, and a blunt-ended torpedo was coming towards her. If that’s not suggestive, I don’t know what is. Moreover, her life among the Amazons is indicative of a lesbian community into bondage …
whew, I must stop now.
/wipes sweat off forehead
No. It’s easy for a child to seer clear - or be steered clear - of the TMI threads or those of obvious dubiousness. It’s a lot harder when you have posters like EC.
Or perhaps it isn’t. I’m not a parent. Enlighten me.
I got the joke. It just didn’t happen to be funny.
And you’re pretty clearly wrong about that one.
Not even slightly. Free speech as a social principle means tolerating even grossly offensive and stupid speech - for instance, white supremacist marches - and it’s necessary for a modern society to exist. But declaring that this must be a forum for every kind of speech in existence means we can’t ban people for being inappropriate, for violating the rules, or for generally reducing the standards of conduct around here. That’s not a good thing.
He was dealt with privately by the mods. That’s their right. We don’t conduct trials. We don’t have the ability to formally confront our accusers. That’s okay, because the risks are so small - the worst the admins can do is deny you access to a messageboard. That’s hardly a situation even faintly comparable to the formal process for taking away someone’s most precious lives that the criminal court system embodies. It would be nice if they had linked to some stuff in the suspension post, I agree - but there’s no obligation for them to do so.
Not only that, but he wasn’t even banned. Just suspended for a month.
I of corse have no idea what you could possibly be talking about. And was just snarking at how the moderators seem to have been pressurised into a susspension by off board efforts.
Like it or lump it the ranters are part of this community even if not this web site.
Good thing you’ve never brought up that place for no readily apparent reason, huh?
You’re right! The only sensible thing to do is always do the exact opposite of whatever they want on the Sooper-Dooper-Sekrit-Place-Of-Infamy-Whose-Name-I-Won’t-Utter-Lest-I-Be-Cast-Out. That’s what the mods should be doing. :rolleyes:
Right. You are “snarking” about “nonnies” but oh lord no, you just have no idea whatever Cynical Optimist could possibly be talking about. :rolleyes:
More to the point, why should be even consider that the Mods here give a shit about some anonymous LJ community and the pressure that they bring to bear. Give me a break.
Ooh, burn. Still trying to claim you weren’t looking to get revenge on all us mean nonnies like you said you were? Como talle vu, Q.E.D.?
Hm. So . . . external forces lob a hijack bomb to see if they can trainwreck this thread, and the general reaction is NOT to ignore it. What could possibly go wrong?
I’m not a parent either.
I can only speak from the experience of my memories of being a 14-year old.
Personally, as a teenager i wouldn’t have been trying to “steer clear” of TMI threads. In fact, i would have been actively seeking them out.
And how many parents do you think sit next to their kids and monitor which threads they read on the SDMB?
I recognize that some material on this board might not be suitable for kids; i merely take issue with your suggestion that this is something we need to worry about, or that we need to take into account when making our posts.
Now that I think about it, that would be an adequate explanation of Bippy the Beardless’ behavior . . .
In their dreams.
I was not even aware that the snarkers had started their 18,000,000th snipe fest about E C until his name came up in staff discussion based on reported posts–and the Mods who introduced the topic to the staff are not the Mods who do vist the snarkers. (The snarkers have gotten so boring I rarely visit more than once a week.)
Loach has provided the best synopsis of the staff discussions–including the fact that we hardly paid any attention to the specific contents of his hijacks so much as the fact that he continued the hijacks even in his own threads. The discussion focused on one-trick-pony nature of the hijacks, (because E C does participate with more varied topics–when he is not hijacking threads), not on the content of the hijacks.
Thank you for the clarification. I at least appreciate it a lot. So it wasn’t a specific post that broke the camel’s back but a continuation of a pattern.
Hopefully next month he will refrain from this activity. He is actually an interesting poster when he is not drooling over bondage.
Jim
Posting links to the snarkboard is part of what got DrLoveGun banned.
Trying to add a little caché to your posts, eh? Glass houses, my friend. Glass houses.
But, since you brought it up, you’ll be kind enough to show me where I ever said I was trying to get revenge on anyone? I’ll accept a copy & paste in lieu of a link, if such a post exists on the other board. I’m fairly certain I never made any such statement.
*comment allez vous
cachet*
Now THERE’S a good idea: cutting and pasting posts from the snarkboards.
How did this thread become 100% about the snarkboards?
I’d say the trainwreck grenade worked.