Fluiddruid WTF?

So over in the latest Duke lacrosse rape case train wreck Contrapuntal writes a post comparing the apologies of Mike Nifong and one by Jemele Hill a writer for ESPN. The post has links to Mr. Nifong’s apology and and to Ms. Hill’s article. (post #219 page 5 for those playing along at home)
After a few light hearted posts about angry studies and alike Hubzilla posts the following

When I read that I had to laugh as the picture accompanying the article clearly shows that Ms. Hill is a woman and not a guy. Also the first sentence of the second paragraph starts “My being a black woman,”
So I clicked on her picture in the article and did a copy of the two sentence bio info, and posted the following

This morning I come back to visit the thread, and find I have been spanked

OK, I should have not posted her e mail address, my bad. (it was late, I was tired, my dog ate my copy of the rule book etc) But show me just where in my post there was any call to action or encouragement for anyone to contact Ms. Hill. :confused: Yes, intention took it upon himself to write her a thank you note, but show me where I encouraged him to do so.
The only call to action (if you can even call it that) in that post was for Hubzilla to look a little closer at the link, and get the gender of the author right.
Also you removed the entire quote from the ESPN page not just the e mail address. Which makes me think that you consider any reference to anyone IRL to be a bozo no-no.
So given that I should not have posted the e mail addy, why did you remove her name, and the fact that she works for ESPN and in fact is a female? Nice gutting of a post by the way.
Is it a new policy that we cannot name anyone outside of the SDMB in a post, or identify their gender?
Or did you just get your jackboots on the wrong feet today?

My presumption was that, if you chose to post someone’s email address, that is a fairly strong indication that you wish for people to contact that person. In addition, a user did so. For this reason, I removed the name and email address from the post.

I apologize if you found this offensive, but unfortunately it is hard to gauge intent. I presumed you meant to post what you did.

I wanted to get a complete sentence, as complete sentences read so much better. the sentence that showed her gender was “She can be reached at Isureashellamnotgoingtoposthataddressagain@someISP.com.”
Yes I admit I should not have included her e mail, I honestly forgot.
But why did you gut the rest of the post?
Is my posting of her name now against the rules?

My previous response clearly stated why the name was removed (and the post “gutted” in your opinion):

There is nothing specific that rules against posting someone’s name. It was due to the combination that the contact information was removed. I see no problem with you reposting her name if you wish, sans email, now that you have clarified your intentions.

FWIW, I see I was mistaken that it was a woman, not a man, who wrote the article. My bad, so Rick pointed that out.

I don’t see the big deal about the e-mail address, nor a “call for action”.

I think the intent of the post was pretty clearly to smack Hubzilla in the forehead with a ‘Dude, Jemele Hill’s a woman.’ statement.

Then I saw fluiddruid went all apeshit over information that was at the bottom of the damn article that was linked to, and I thought ‘Someone took their moron pill this morning.’

Some kind of help
Is the kind of help
That helping’s all about
And some kind of help
Is the kind of help
We all could do without.
-Shel Silverstein, from “Free To Be You And Me”

With all due respect to fluiddruid’s intent to interpret Rick’s intent and conform his post to the rules, this whole thing seems to me a case of what my honorary granddaughter, shortly after learning the facts of life at age 10, described as “ovary acting” :smiley:

Polycarp, fair enough. Rick posted something he didn’t intend to, and I responded based on what he posted. Hopefully that’s enough; as I mentioned, my intention was not to offend but simply to keep posts within our guidelines.

Your presumption is accurate. Your guage of what he said is not. A reply like “Opps, sorry. I misunderstood. The post has been restored without the email address” would have been better.

fluiddruid It wasn’t so much what you did, as how you did it. Look, I have been around here for a long time, and I try not to break the rules. So when I saw what you did, it really shook me. and it confused me. I felt like you had used a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It probably did not seem that way to you, but that is how it felt to me.
If you had just removed the e mail address I would have never opened this thread. I would have been falling all over myself to apologize for fucking up. Yes I did screw up, I should have never have posted the e mail addy. I did not think it though.
Instead you took out her name, sex (without which, my post does not make nearly as much sense) and the e mail which I agree should have been removed. This confused me. This was also the source of my gutting comments.
Anyway, I think we have come to an understanding, and I hope we can move forward.

I’m not normally one to bash the mods, but I have to take Fluiddruid to task here. It’s not so much his deleting what he did, it’s what he’s written in this thread.

That’s the kind of weaselly non apology you get from B-list celebrities after they fucked up. Don’t apologize with an “if”. It passively lays the blame on the aggrieved. This is especially true here, because it was followed by a passive-aggressive “presumption” that was nothing more than a condescending swipe at Rick’s ability to get his point across.

“I apologize if you were hurt” shows a fundamental lack of character. Either apologize sincerely, or don’t apologize at all.

Subway rider: “Hey buddy, you just stepped on my toe!”
Fluiddruid: “I apologize if you are experiencing foot discomfort. I presumed you meant to place your foot below mine. Now go forth, and sin no more.”