Not really worthy of a Pitting, but this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5537444&postcount=57
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5542565&postcount=233
is just too, too delicious to go unremarked.
:rolleyes:
I must be missing something; I’ve been working all night, so it could just be that I’m in a current brain-freeze.
Tuba closed vanilla’s thread (wisely, IMO), and then closed the other thread about vanilla’s hopefully temporary banning (mercifully).
Why is that so delicious?
It’s about Administrative actions . . . it belongs in The Pit.
Cajun Man
for the SDMB
Shrinking Violet, your point is?
I don’t understand this at all.
Do you hate Tuba or Vanilla?
As I see it, the point being offered is that TubaDiva closed the second thread with an admonition about attacking someone who isn’t able to reply or defend herself, after having closed vanilla’s thread with a heaping serving of criticism.
I think Shrinking Violet is suggesting that there’s some hypocrisy here.
I think that Shrinking Violet is pointing out the apparent irony of Tuba Diva locking vanilla’s original thread, banning her so that she cannot respond, giving her a bit of a tongue-lashing as a parting shot (first link), and then subsequently locking the follow-up thread based upon the fact that vanilla is banned and cannot respond (second link).
Curse you, ETF ! 
And what’s with the timestamp? It certainly didn’t take me 9 minutes to compose that brief post.
Time flies when you’re carefully and cautiously choosing your words.
ETF and Mayfield St. Cloud have it spot-on.
I put in in MPSIMS because of the (to me) humorous angle … but if it counts as a pitting, so be it. :shrug:
FTR - I don’t like / dislike either TubaDiva or Vanilla. It was the sheer irony of the thing which made me chuckle. It’s the kind of thing which makes this place so entertaining.
My guess is Shrinking Violet thought it was rather ironic that Tuba had a pit thread about her because of taking a (what some/many thought to be) nasty parting shot to vanilla after she had suspended vanilla, not letting her respond. And then Tuba closed the second thread, saying it wasn’t fair of anyone in that thread to trash vanilla when she couldn’t be there to defend herself.
Grar! Note to self: when opening tons of threads in separate tabs, remember to refresh them before replying. :smack:
I thought shrinking violet was being ironic saying that it was too delicious for it to go unremarked and then, you know, not making any remarks.
Except for :rolleyes:
:dubious: 
:rolleyes:
So there.
I’m finding this whole thread rather recursively cryptic, myself.
I don’t think you can reasonably equate a single post explaining a suspension and containing a one-line admonishment with a lengthy, ongoing thread which stopped being a discussion about the administrative decision and devolved into a debate about whether or not the absent poster is “nice” or “evil,” with all aspects of her past behaviour and real-life circumstances being dissected by various and sundry.
You’re making this more complicated than it is - I was equating two related posts from **TubaDiva ** a mere two days apart, which, to say the least, do not sit well together.
They sit together fine.
Post #1: “You’re being suspended for a month for your behaviour in this thread and this is why. Pull yourself together!”
Post #2: “Look, we’re not going rake someone over the coals for every aspect of their past behaviour on the board and talk about their personal life while she’s not here.”
How do you think the first post should been presented? “Sweetie… Darling… You know you can do no wrong, but really, we can’t have this sort of thing, so here’s a token suspension for ya. See you in a month. Kiss kiss!” You can’t suspend someone without being critical, and if it was a bit more critical than usual, it was because previous admonishments didn’t get through.
Or are you saying that vanilla should have been allowed to make a formal rebuttal before the suspension took effect?
A non-fluffy suspension is one thing, and a five page thread that wanders off the topic of the immediate circumstances surrounding the suspension until it becomes an ongoing vivisection of a member is something else again.
There’s no inconsistency there. You might as well complain that the sheriff put someone in the stocks but won’t let a mob throw cow-pies at them.
I have to agree with Larry. I think bannings and suspensions should be explained whenever possible, just for transparency’s sake. Obviously TubaDiva was pissed, but I don’t think she was taking unnecessary potshots. Wouldn’t it have been worse to just let a pile-on continue?
Larry, that’s a good analogy, but I think what some people would say that TubaDiva locked vanilla in the stocks, gave her a lil’ Dirty Sanchez, then forbade everyone from throwing cow pies at her.
In other words: her criticism went rather beyond what is normally doled out to bannees. ymmmmmmmmmmmv.
It was more like, “I can’t believe you, you’re such a sneaky, manipulative little thing, luring someone here to trap them-what a shitty Christian you are!”
THEN going and locking the other thread, because vanilla’s not here to respond.
I don’t blame her for suspending vanilla. But I think she could have been blunt and to the point without being outright snarky.