On a happier note…lee, KellyM and Uke are happy to have the “thread with most meltdown potential” title wrestled from their grasp.
Do a search, sugarpants.
Jar posted calmly and rationally. DDG, OTOH, flipped out like Courtney Love when the needle runs dry.
Jar has the right to her opinion and to express it, just like everyone else.
I prefer the term “snarky bitch”. And again, I have the right to my opinion, just like you do.
hardy, your history of following and echoing jar speaks for itself–no need to be a mind reader. And you might notice that I’m not the only one who pointed out that you do this on a fairly regular basis?
Gee, sorry I didn’t proof read well enough for you…If I had the time, like you obviously do, I’d go back and look for mistakes in your previous posts.
But I don’t.
For all those who have made the suggestion; It’s a bit hard to email DDG when she hides her email in her profile.
DDG, I gotta say, wayyyy over the top there. Is everything OK?
This thread has done little for my opinion of either jarbabyj or DDG.
Both of you (and toss hardygrrl into the mix) are really coming off as catty.
How about the two (or three) of youse agree to not like each other and do what youse gotta do to not have to deal with each other in the future, and stop making such a big f-ing production out of all of this.
You’re all valuable posters, but sheesh already.
Happy
The irony…
Coldie: its only the 9th of January, My Hypothesis can still hold true! 
Jarbaby, what would posses you to ever think that if you were hurt by a pit thread that it wouldn’t incite anger in DDG? What made you think that there would be fuzzy bunnies, and thanks for all of the “constructive” criticisms?
I don’t know how you responded in the pit threads against you. I generally don’t open pit threads against poster I like (this one was cleverly disguised). However, I don’t imagine that you were very happy about the oh so “helpful” advice.
Xploder, I am so sorry that I’ve offended you delicate constitution. When I posted that comment there was a total of one unequivocal support post for Duck. I see that as a pile on. YMMV.
Weirddave, I hide mine too, but twice I’ve gotten e-mail from other posters. It’s really not that hard to acquire.
January’s not over yet… 
light strand, cut and paste were I said I expected fuzzy bunnies.
thanks.
No problem. I still say that you made a bullshit assertion. Nobody has either won or lost because, contrary to your stated belief, I seriously dount that this thread was posted as a popularity contest.
Also, I have probably the world’s most NON-delicate constitution. Hey! I still buy MRE’s at the local surplus store once in awhile! And I even EAT them!
I’m sort of interested in knowing when “starts a lot of threads” became “is a contributing member of the board.”
Is it just me? Or is this point completely irrelevant?
I promise to learn how to spel reel suun noaw…sheesh
The irony is choking me, can someone break a window?
This from the woman who seemingly pops into most Jar threads to disagree with Jar?
If she posted that water was wet, you’d come in to mention that it’s dry. Almost as ironic as telling jar she’s ‘attention seeking’ while posting a picture of yourself in a bikini on the People Pages.
Word. This thread is making me sad–it’s like when your parents fight or something (not literally, k? it’s just sad.)
News flash, Jar: you don’t post “constructive criticism” in a fucking Pit rant. :rolleyes:
And a Pit rant that basically says to a person, “Your whole lifestyle sucks–get a new one” doesn’t fit MY definition of “constructive”. If you wanted me to knock off the Pretentious Mod Stuff and the Google Stuff, you could have posted it, for starters, in Joe Cool’s thread, where you made your original “gimmick” comment, and then I could have told you to sod off, because I don’t take kindly to people telling me that my whole lifestyle sucks, get a new one. And that would have been the end of it.
But I resent being the subject of an entire Pit thread JUST FOR MY POSTING STYLE. There is no substance to your complaints, you’re just ranting because I annoy you. And when people rant just because I annoy them, damn right I pull out the 20 gauge and go ballistic.
I was snarky to Joe Cool because he was fucking snarky to me.
BTW, here ya go, Hardygrrl, you dumb bitch–BTW, no, I didn’t change my mind about the word “cunt”, I used it on purpose. Of course, if you had more brains, you’d have realized that. :rolleyes:
Geez, Hardygrrl, you’re stupid, too. Do you actually think that all those General Questions that get answered are answered by people who ACTUALLY KNOW THE ANSWERS? Do you actually think that I’m the only one who looks stuff up on Google? Do you actually think that Padeye and Ringo and Podkayne and all the others who hang out in GQ answering questions AREN’T FUCKING LOOKING IT UP ON GOOGLE?
I see that YOU basically spend ZERO time in General Questions trying to answer anybody’s questions…So where the hell do you get off pontificating on whether we’re supposed to use Google or not? Why don’t YOU spend a little time in there helping us identify bugs for Nickrz, or talking to people who just found out their relatives just have some rare disease, what does it mean, or trying to find out whether some politician really said that? Do you really think that the questions about rare diseases are answered by people who actually know what XYZ Syndrome is? Do you really think there are GQers who actually know whether Jesse Jackson really said that?
I just looked through your last 100 posts, and you were in GQ exactly once, and then you answered out of your own experience. Well, gee, honey, that’s lovely that you happened to have some actual information, but all the other hundreds of General Questions DON’T get answered just because someone happens to know how many Presidents were divorced. GQ isn’t Jeopardy–you’re SUPPOSED to look stuff up, to make sure you get it fucking RIGHT.
Ah, that explains it, then. And obviously, you must know very little, since you’re in there so infrequently.
Why aren’t you jumping all over Padeye’s ass for using Google instead of answering out of his own knowledge? Or Sailor? Duckster? I mean, you don’t seriously think I’m the only one using Google? Bibliophage? You think he never has to look anything up? Kniz?
When people want answers that aren’t searchable, it’s immediately fucking obvious that the answer isn’t searchable–“How can I beat this traffic ticket?” “Why doesn’t AOL prosecute?” And nobody googles that, they just answer off the top of their heads.
Well, if you spent more time in GQ, you’d know that I do. Frequently. On the questions that AREN’T SEARCHABLE, like Robyn wanting to know how to get a bag of melted marshmallows off the top of her stove.
And “pandering”? WTF? That word does not mean what you think it means… :rolleyes:
Maeglin, you were asked to find a place where I was proved wrong and ignored it, or didn’t post an “oops”. I didn’t “ignore” Jodi’s response. I acknowledged our difference of OPINION, and moved on. Annnnd… that was from two years ago? And that’s the best you can do?
Mojo, I’m sorry you were bored, I thought it was pertinent to the discussion. I thought maybe Chumpsky could use a few “facts” about the supposed meltdown of the former Soviet republics. I see that I was mistaken, that “facts” aren’t going to help him.
Coldfire, first of all, is that an official request from the SDMB Adminstration that I stop posting comments like, “You might get better responses to this in another forum, e-mail a mod”, or “It’s customary to post a link to the thread that spawned a rant”, that in the future I refrain from anything like that? 'Cause if so, I’ll be happy to comply. God knows I wouldn’t want to take bread out of the mouths of starving moderators, they need those moderating points to take to the Company Store and trade for food for their little mods…However, I think it should be an official Rule, up in a sticky, and not just for me, because I don’t think it’s fair to single me out for Excessive Helpfulness. :rolleyes:
Second:
Hardly any of the useful day to day stuff is in the FAQ. “Post a link to the thread that spawned the Pit rant.” “Post a link to any articles you quote from in GD.” “No post count parties.” “Don’t use MPSIMS as personal communications with other posters who don’t have e-mail addys listed.” “How much quoting constitutes copyright violation?” “Always search the archives, and Google, and Snopes, first.” Stuff like that. Which are the things that newbies violate, and which I feel like they ought to be told by somebody, kindly, without flaming them for being newbie asses.
Third, look, it’s time for you to put up or shut up, Coldfire. Let’s see some cites, and don’t try to weasel out of it by pulling out your “I’m a Moderator so I don’t have to explain things in the thread, you can discuss it in e-mail” card.
Okay, Citizen Coldfire–cites?
Oh, and count me amongst the group the finds the frequent mod-wanna-be behavior rather annoying. If that makes me part of the perceived “pile-on,” so be it.
Your whole lifestyle centers around posting on the SDMB?
“You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?”
I mean…yoinks.
Holy shit. Maybe I’d better quit posting all my “Well, this is just my personal experience, but…” type posts. As well as those about my husband and kids, lest it become my “gimmick.”
Y’know, everyone has a style. Mine is personal, inane for the most part, warm and fuzzy and huggy. Other posters–and my! how I appreciate them when I need facts–are able to do a quick Google search using maybe three of the 895 words I post, toss through the resulting 450,000 hits, and direct me to the most relevent information. Some folks post nothing but diatribes, some post weekly humor columns, some post about their own searches for personal fulfillment as they go through divorce, job searches, months of ttc, adoptions, pregnancies, you name it.
I can’t imagine that this is really worth starting a fight over, jar. DDG may be a little Google-oriented for you, and that’s fine. She’s not attention whoring, she’s just doing her thing, and personally I appreciate her contributions. She’s not posting anything rude, obnoxious, overly personal, or controversial. She’s certainly not deserving of the potshots that have been taken against her lately, and she doesn’t deserve this either.
Then you have an amazingly skilled parrot. I know a great many people who CAN’T do that, or don’t have the analytical skills to digest what Google returns and rapidly get the relevant info. The web is a wealth of info, but it’s not as user friendly as we’d like to imagine. For the most part the info is indexed EXTREMELY poorly and not everyone is as skilled as your parrot.
I get (what I would consider) dumb questions from people, things that a simple google would answer, ALL THE TIME. We get them in GQ ALL THE TIME. DDG often plays the part of a librarian, assisting people in finding the path to knowledge. It’s the “give a man a fish versus teach him to fish” dichotomy. There is nothing wrong with only answering questions based upon your personal knowledge, but taking the time and effort to expand your personal knowledge(and including info on how the questioner can expand theirs) so you can answer their question. I’ve not seen a DDG post in reply to a genuine question which was not a genuine attempt to answer it. It may have been a wrong answer, or it could have been someone else’s answer delivered with her as their proxy, but still a bona fide attempt at an answer nonetheless. On the whole I’d say she’s on target far more than she misses. End result: Ignorance fought. Bully.
??? If you’re referring to her posts in GD on subjective topics such as political issues then you may well have a point although a great many of those are of the “what did this person actually say” variety and those are factual correct/not correct type answers. On GQ topics with factual answers I fail to see how her links could be correct/relevant to one person and incorrect/irrelevant to another. Either they answer the question with a fact or they don’t. If you meant subjective things like politics then a more explicit description is in order. We’re talking about THOUSANDS of posts here, a large number of which are in GQ and on factual topics. A googled cite for a question like “why is the sky blue” can either be correct or not, relevant or not, but there’s no middle ground which depends on the reader’s personal taste.
Saying that it’s a matter of personal taste if her contributions are generally correct and relevant on factual issues is a bit of a stretch IMO.
DDG, allow me to echo minty green and say that I think you’re good to keep doing what you’re doing(your speculations on staff actions is between you and them) for the most part, but lashing out at Jarbabyj like that went a bit over the top. I don’t take criticism particularly well either but wow…
Jarbabyj, DDG adds significant value to the fight against ignorance even if she never does anything but do the google legwork for other people. If your real beef was with how she takes her status as a long-time poster as license to speak from a position of semi-authority on moderator actions or possible staff actions then it could have easily been done without essentially calling her a one-trick pony who is simply a mouthpiece for google that posts because she likes to hear herself talk. (cf the “tired of your gimmick” bit of the OP)
Enjoy,
Steven
Wow. You are such a stupid, patronizing bitch.