Let’s try some substitutions in this statement as a logical exercise:
“Other posters are certainly entitled to express their opinions both of the links you post, and of the actions that you take towards those links.”
Seems to me that you argue like an overflowing yogurt box.
minty, I am surprised at your low threshhold for reasonableness. In five minutes I have found two posts which contained completely erroneous information, and a third which revealed inadequate internet research skills. $100 says she plugged the symptoms into google, found a few relevant mental health sites, and posted the results.
Fortunately, more discerning posters went straight to IMDB.
I have easily made a prima facie complaint.
People ask questions. Some simple, like the third linked thread. Some more complicated. DDG answers them incorrectly, despite evidence of internet research. This is enough for me, I stand by it.
And here’s another gem. While no doctor has stepped in to prove her wrong, I’ll be fucking damned if she is going to be giving medical advice with information gleaned from google. If you don’t think this is presumptuous, then perhaps you value the health of your body less than I do.
For your amusement, I link this. While I am reticent to submit a discussion of phalluses in the British Museum as evidence, observe this exchange:
To which APB replies:
Her response?
Despite the fact that she answered the question authoritatively above, with the following remark:
You make the call, minty, my mind is made up. First she dismissed the story as a UL, and then backpedaled:
Moot indeed.
Part of the fighting ignorance thing, Duck. Having read a shitload (hey this cussing is fun! hell, damn, fart!) of your posts, my personal experience tells me that Maeglin is wrong. By researching the issue, I believe that he will eventually come to that conclusion as well. I’m only “encouraging” him to recognize his mistake. 
Gotta agree with you on the hamster abuse, however. Seems like an appropriate time for my revised sig . . .
Which is just about the same thing you do with google, except you actually give advice and try to pass it off as fighting ignorance. Nonsense. At least I am not potentially causing physical harm to people or spreading misinformation.
Thanks DDG- as ugly as thread might get, at least I learned something. I’ll bow out now.
What you’re conveniently overlooking is that minty is demanding that he provide these links to back up what he’s saying. And he’s providing them adequately. He’s given plenty of examples and frankly, I think you’re so wound up in self-defense right now that you won’t accept you were wrong or misguided.
Do you see how defensive you’re being? Coldfire states, in reasonable language, that he feels you occasionally overstep the boundaries into wannabe-mod. How about, instead of stamping your feet and demanding proof and rejecting it when explicit examples are given, you take a step back and have a little look at your own behaviour. Learn to take a little criticism once in a while and realise that sometimes, however defensive it makes you feel, it may have some validity.
You’re a well-liked poster, this is evident. I’m happy for you. But you’re making yourself look terrible with this hissy fingers-in-your-ears fit you’re pitching in response to criticism that comes complete with explanations and cites of examples of your behaviour. You can continue to deny everything, or you could perhaps listen and take away something constructive.
Well Minty Green looks like you finally got that ticket out of reality.
Nowhere did I EVER mention or accuse DDG of doing that. Yet again some half a braincelled twerp decided what I said and goes ballistic on it.
Running a search engine and finding a collection of sources that backs up your point isn’t really accomplishing anything except proving you have basic typing and critical reading skills. There’s a fine line between spewing back search results and critical analysis of a large body of work. It’s the difference between saying, “I’m right because these people agree with me, ohh look at their names!” And saying, “I’m right because these are the basic assumptions I’m using to base my arguement, these basic assumptioins imply this condition exists.”
You can argueably call both research. But which one is the more usefull skill?
See, I take issue with people who do the former. The former is just proving you’re right, the latter is showing the method by which you reached your conclusion using previously proven facts. The latter is the sort of research that builds my career. The former is what you see being done by undergrads and my pet idiot.
And finally, Minty Green.
I suggest you get some perspective. I don’t give a flying fuck what DDG does or doesn’t do with her googling. I’ve read less than 10 or 15 of her posts. I neither said, nor implied with ANYTHING I wrote about her.
My quote above was agree with Hardygrrl that there IS a difference between spewing back answers and critical thinking. God forbid that I didn’t say or imply anything else.
Ok, now keep going until you can substantiate your earlier claim.
You have to disprove the general case. 30% inaccuracy works for me, no need to go over 50%. Post whenever your evidence is ready. Remember that “strictly” is a pretty tough standard.
Enjoy,
Steven
Won’t somebody please think of the hamsters!
Again with the drama. It’s getting pretty difficult to provide you with constructive criticism if your only responses are a complete exaggeration.
The problem in the first thread, DDG, is that you most certainly did not clearly state that it was your opinion. In fact, you said:
The word “definitely” makes it seem like it’s carved in stone, and it’s not, in this case. The second part of your advice can be seen as an opinion, but it’s certainly in no way based on any SDMB rule, which is obviously what the OP was looking for. Indeed, the word “moderator” doesn’t appear under your name. It would only make sense not to present information as fact when you don’t really know the answer, then.
Yes, of course you can opine on links posted on the boards, and what the staff does with them. But when you compare a poster’s logic for posting a link to that of a “child-raping evil father” after an administrator already made the necessary comments, then what are you honestly trying to achieve? The poster was told which link was inappropriate. The staff had obviously seen the post. Why then berate the poster some more? I just don’t get it - and that’s not even considering the extremely hyperbolic analogy you used to get your point across.
Well, since I searched on my username and the word “duck” in order to get my results (as explained previously), of course you’ll get examples where we interact. And as stated, I’m not going to wade through 100+ ATMB threads to find more examples. Sorry.
I’m not going to repeat myself. I’ve made it perfectly clear in which cases help from posters in ATMB is greatly appreciated. Your strange attempts to turn this into some sort of scenario where the staff (or myself specifically) is vehemently trying to stop posters (or you specifically) from helping out in ATMB altogether do not change that. If you prefer to believe that I have it in for you, and want to stop you from posting in ATMB, then I suppose that’s your prerogative.
That last sentence says it all. You weren’t kidding when you said you don’t take criticism very well. I’ve tried to be constructive about it, I’ve tried to come up with examples to illustrate my point. The only thing you do with my advice is blow it up, distort it, and present it back like it’s some sort of giant persecution. It’s not - it was meant as a subtle hint on how you could possibly avoid annoying the administration from time to time. Because you do, believe it or not. All I was trying to do is change that, without belittling the good work you deliver in ATMB. I placed it in this thread because it seemed appropriate, and I still maintain it is. Apparently, your “Pit mode” has left you completely irrational, and fully closed for criticism that isn’t intended to harm or ridicule.
Too bad. Read this thread again in a week or so, and then decide what you do with the information. Continuing this exchange now seems rather senseless, so I’ll just bow out for now.
I thought I had made it clear that this was in reference to a GD context. You say:
So, if you would like clarification of my personal view, here you go.
In GQ, she often posts correct, relevant information.
In GQ, she also posts demonstrably erroneous information.
In GD, she often posts useful information.
In GD, she often (more often perhaps than in GQ) posts information of extremely dubious use and relevance.
The below is “strictly” a matter of personal taste.
Couldn’t make the grade, so you carp from the sidelines ? I’m not impressed. You’ve shown us above that you can do crappy research via the internet. Can you provide any evidence that you personally are capable of ferreting out the useful bits from the great wash of noise ? Your single GQ post in the past year"Sorry for ressurecting this but…" regales us with the factoid that Cambridge Geological Museum has a spider that’s 3.5 feet long. Duck Duck Goose was kind enough to supply the rest of us with actual details (50 cm not 3.5 feet) about the beast. Too bad you couldn’t have done that. It would have saved DDG some time, and shown at least some research ability on your part.
With all the fucking muppets we get passing through here, we see a shitstorm of this proportions just 'cos DDG is handy with Google.
Fuck me, I hate it when shit like this happens.
Okay, then, Coldfire, fine–as long as we’re agreed that it’s “your” problem.
Okay, Maeglin, you are so pathetic that you sucked me into one more post, out of sheer pity.
You’re wrong–your spreading of misinformation, especially the misinformation you just spread in your last few posts, DOES cause physical harm to people–everyone reading your hamfisted attempts at proving me wrong has had to slap themselves in the forehead very hard, " :smack: " like that, “Oy, that Maeglin, why is he still here…”
Not only do you not quote my entire response to APB, which is a completely different response than the apparent brushoff and refusal to admit I was wrong that you are representing it as…
…but you also conveniently forgot to mention that he agreed with me, in the very next post.
When discussing Urban Legends, it’s sometimes difficult to establish a level of “truth”, hence it can look like “backpedaling” to persons who are ignorant and have no understanding of how the Fight Against Ignorance works.
And this is just stupid.
Was the information I gave Guin wrong? No, it was not. It was perfectly correct.
You are TRULY pathetic.
Minty, it’s not worth it, he’s just sitting there wanking off with this.
Well fine…hairy palms equals new pitch. Don’t you think that impending blindness might negate the efficacy of the newly aquired pitch?
I wonder if you really have thought this through, my friend.
Yeah, and I fucked up a question about Van Halen with a top-of-my-head answer in CS the other day. Big freakin’ deal. Of course, anybody who started a pit thread about that would be a pudend of virftually limitless proportions.
Good god, that’s weak. Her answer is quite correct: If you drink too much water, you can fuck yourself up. What’s next, bitching if she says aspirin can get rid of a headache?
In which somebody asks “Is x true?” and DDG answers that she did a bunch of searching and couldn’t find any evidence it’s true, and she’s of the opinion it’s nonsense.
Now that is really, fucking low on your part, Maeglin. In point of fact, that was NOT her response. The entire response is quoted below. Note how she accepts that she might be wrong, explains her reasoning for continuing to doubt the claim, thanks the poster for providing the information, and even gives a proper link to its location:
God, what a bitch! :rolleyes:
I’d smooch you, CRorex, if you didn’t smell of monkey. 
Why does it need to be clearly stated? Any non-moderator advice about the rules of this board are, ipso facto, opinion. Prefacing a statement with “In my opinion…” is redundant. Whether it has a disclaimer or not, it is opinion.
If that was all you were doing, then I apologize for the snotty reply. In context, agreeing with hardy came off as a slam against DDG and her considerable research skills, which go far beyond simple regurgitation.
I asked you to make that clarification, but didn’t get a response(I looked). Now that we’re in the world of subjective topics where there really isn’t a clear “correct and relevant” litmus test to use I’m pretty sure your job got even harder. The poster who claimed DDG generally links to correct and relevant info wasn’t confining their claim to GD. You made the claim that her contributions were relevant/correct strictly as a matter of personal taste. I asked for clarification as to which of her responses you were referring to as this was clearly not the case with her contributions to GQ. No clarification came forth until this post.
I still think you’ve got a really hard row to hoe to show that her contributions to GD topics which include links link to content which is not relevant/correct in the general case. It might be easier to back off that statement and call her a stubborn bitch who doesn’t back down even when the evidence goes against her. (ironically continuing to try to prove her citations/contributions are NOT generally relevant/correct might make YOU look like a stubborn bitch who doesn’t back down even when the evidence goes against him. Still you’d probably be in good company, seems to be fairly common)
Enjoy,
Steven