Thanks, Shayna. After re-reading, I figured out what you meant. My bad!
Hey Rasa
couldn’t that have been done over email?
Do you guys always have to post together?
Perhaps I’m taking this out of context and misreading evilbeth’s comment… but it’s ironic that of all the posters, evilbeth is the one that asked that. When I made my previous post on page 2,it originally went something like this: If I see a thread started by hypergirl, I know, without opening the thread, that skuuggii (I know I’ve spelled that wrong and I’m sorry), hypergirl, iampunha, and their assorted virtual spouses will post. If I see a thread started by tatertot, I expect to see evilbeth, Twisty, Coldfire, and the “EuroDopers”. If I see a thread started by Euty, I expect to see Scotticher, evilbeth, Persephone, etc. An Anthracite thread will most likely have Pepperlandgirl and fierra and andygirl and perhaps me.
…but then I thought people might be ticked at being “named” in the Pit, or that I took exception to how they post. I saw that I’d mentioned evilbeth twice, and didn’t want to seem like I was singling her out. Most of those people I mentioned I have a whole ton of respect and admiration for. I don’t have a problem with how any of them post.
If everyone took a deep breath and didn’t spend so much time monitoring who’s posting what with whom, I think we’d be a whole lot less persnickity and not waste bandwith rehashing this same old argument.
Anyway. Not to speak for him or anything, but I assume oldscratch was playing devil’s advocate by posting immediately after me.
Hey, hey, hey! I was doing the same thing! I assumed that oldscratch was being funny by posting the thing about taking it to e-mail since it was just discussed and I thought I’d be funny right back by making a comment about the two of you posting together all the time since it was just discussed too! Damn, I knew I should have used a smilie!
No hard feelings, Rasa? Hey, I know that tater and I have hijacked many threads and filled them with pointless stuff. I have made the proclaimation, though, that I will stop. (It may have been in the other thread!) I know how irritating it can be so I decided to really try to cut back!
You mentioned me twice? Hmmm…I may have to go back and look! You may be in trouble yet, you! 
(<—see, smilies are our friends!)
::WHOOSH::
See? In all this craziness I start getting all paranoid and stuff and reading in to posts that are meant in jest. Though a freakin’ smiley wouldn’t have killed you would it evilbeth? SHEESH! In a totally un-Pitlike show of relief (cuz I dig you and sniffle thought you didn’t like me), I smile at you, evilbeth. 
Well, I’m glad that’s over! Damnit, I’m using smilies in all my posts now just in case!
No, I didn’t see it as a slam at all. I did consider it somewhat tacky though. It’s drawing a completely unattackable (is that a word even? Fuck, it is now.) argument into a discussion. Sure, we all loved Wally. And then people start falling over themselves, tossing links around as “proof”, quarreling over who loved/respected/appreciated/honoured Wally most.
I’m telling you, if the man himself were here right now, he’d tell you to stop kissing ass, wipe the shit from your nose, and debate in a constructive and dignified manner. Then, he’s throw a couple of putzes around and be on his merry way to amuse and/or enlighten us some more.
Which is something you all could be doing right now.
I’m trying to decide if I want to take issue with Coldfire’s last sentence or not. I don’t believe we’re ALL in here just flinging shit to amuse the monkeys.
I’ll sleep on it. Lord knows I don’t want to have an egocentric knee-jerk reaction.
“… to all that feel it applies to them.”
I was obviously referring to those drawing Wally into the equation. Sleep tight now.
Thanks, Coldy. This only reinforces why you’re one of my favorites.
Now, about this word, “obviously…”
I should use smileys more.
oldscratch, Nymysys, and Rasa, do y’all prefer the word “posse” or “swarm”?
This is just a sign that I spend too much time here.
Fair enough. I said I’d apologize if anyone thought I was slamming Wally, and I’ll even extend that to being (unintentionally) disrespectful.
So I will: I apologize to anyone who thought anything I wrote reflected badly on Wally or his memory. Such was not my intent, and I don’t really believe that I did say anything wrong, but you know what? It’s sufficient that other people think I did.
So fine, I apologize.
**
Nothing in what I wrote meant to imply that I liked Wally any more than anyone else. Actually, I didn’t know him personally, so it stands to reason that many or most of you who DID know him, loved him more. I simply posted the links to show that I had nothing against him, in case the previous posts weren’t clear enough.
One last time, with feeling: I think that paying tribute to your friends, being kind, etc. is a good thing. I used Wally as an example of such kindness, and that was the only reason I brought him into the discussion. Apparently some of you thought that was disrespectful. Mea culpa. I have no problem using, say, Scotticher or Purplebear instead. I trust no one will now accuse me of being disrespectful to either of those individuals.
Coldfire, I’d like to direct a question to you: I sincerely don’t mean to offend, but don’t you believe that showing appreciation for your friends and paying tribute to same being perfectly acceptable behavior (within the context of the whole sig argument) IS an unattackable argument? Or if it isn’t, that it OUGHT to be?
I’ve re-read the last two pages of this thread four times now, and I agree with what nearly everyone has said. It wasn’t my intention to come off as nit-picky or bitchy, and I apologize. As I stated before, I love this Board, and there are very few things I feel I can bitch about. This is the Pit, and I related to the OP, so I bitched about them. Long ass sigs piss me off. Clique-y posters piss me off. “Me too! :)” posts piss me off above all else.
I didn’t mean to attack Guinistasia specifically, but I got carried away. The thing is, the exact, specific behavior that bothers me on a regular basis is usually directly attributable to the same posters. So even when they don’t follow their routine, I am still unable to respect them, and am more likely to blow up at them.
I don’t monitor who posts where, how much or with whom. My complaint is that a lot of decent threads get hijacked into a personal issue, or something that only relates to a few posters. So I want to put in my opinion, but the whole thread has lost its train of thought, and I get pissed. I am honestly not jealous and I do not feel left out (I have my own group of friends that I adore, put we keep in touch via e-mail only), but it’s irritating, and as I said before, it’s disheartening. As for sigs, I still maintain that it’s out of respect to other posters that you keep it short and sweet, but it’s your right to have whatever you want in it. From now on, for instance, I will not use my sig over and over again in the same thread. I have no idea it was irritating to others, but I’ll do my best to remember not to click the “sig” box.
I said it once, I’ll say it again: I have no huge problems with this board or the majority of the posters. I love this place. But I thought I had an open forum to bitch about the small things that bother me, and I did so. I think I’ve been thorough in my assertations that the problem I have is not the board in general, but specific occurances, and that I would never leave the Board due to them.
DRY - I have no ill will against you, either (in fact, I’m hoping you can be my cheat sheet for my upcoming Study in Shakespeare 351 class). But please know, FTR, that’s I’ve never started a pit thread against anyone, though I have e-mailed specific posters so that our argument/discussion is kept private. I try to keep all personal stuff outside the Board (this is similar to the incident when Chat arguments got played in the Pit, and we were all told that it was outside stuff and not to be posted here) because it’s just that - personal - and has no place here.
Not offended at all, DRY. OK, in response:[ul][li]Paying tribute to your friends is fine with me. If I were to include a “tatertot thinks I’m a great guy!” line in my sig, nobody would complain. I think that what posters like magdalene are referring to is more along the lines of the length of the sig, the frequency it’s used (once per thread or every post?), and the totally hijacking of threads (or opening dedicated ones) to converse as could also be done per e-mail. So, where I agree with you that paying tribute to or complimenting your friends is great, I can also see why it annoys other people when it’s done too much.[/li][li]The above, hence is not an unacttackable argument. It only becomes unattackable when you bring WallyM7 into the equation. That’s not the same. I’m sorry, but a sig saying “Miss you Wally” (or a custom Wally sig, for that matter) is completely different from an 8 line sig with numerous links to various examples of flirtation, infatuation, and innuendo. Note that I’m not for one minute saying that the latter is bad in itself: but it is tacky to compare the two. Genuine grief and sorrow should not be compared to highschool cafeteria flirtation. That was my point.[/li][li]Thusly, flirting or praising friends ought not be an unattackable point automatically, like showing respect to a friend that passed away.[/ul][/li]They’re just incomparable, at least, that’s how I see it. Comparing the two is tacky. I stand by that statement.
I want this notarized! Hell, I want this engraved on my official SDMB pilsner glass! (They’re still threatening to send me a dribble mug.)
Look, the SDMB is growing fast. That’s GOOD! As a matter of fact it’s great. I don’t think there ever was a “golden age” around here, except in nostalgia. Lots of good friends were made. Looking around for familiar faces isn’t snobbish unless it means ignoring new ones. It may take a little more time getting to know people now, but they’re no less funny, bright, funky, individual for being “new”. It just takes a little more time to meet everyone now. This place attracts rampant individualists–now and in the past. The quality hasn’t changed, just the volume.
Wally…is and was unique. He was cranky, funny, opinionated, laughed harder at himself than anyone else; he had a huge capacity for fun. The Wally sigs grew out of a silly spate of “volunteering” other posters for ridiculous assignments. (I totally flubbed mine.) Predictably, Wally ran w/ his and provided huge amusement.
I can’t explain how traumatic his death was. You can’t realize, none of us did, how real people are here if you let them be. Inexplicably he stopped posting–then we found out he’d died. Knowing Wally–and I don’t think any of us ever met him face to face–was a gift and a fluke of timing.
Missing him is unavoidable. “You don’t know what you’ve got 'til it’s gone.” But I’ll tell you this: if he were around today, I’d wager he’d be revelling in all the new folks. He wasn’t a saint. He would have croggled at the very idea. He’d have bitched, kidded, smacked people then told worse tales on himself; ranted and cosseted and enjoyed the hell out of every minute and person.
Wally sigs carry their own poignance–for obvious reasons. It isn’t–or shouldn’t be–a competition: “he meant this to you; well, this person means this to me.”
The growth of the board is great. Hell, it’s the best compliment going–and lifeblood to a board. If some of the fit isn’t right some of them will by one means or another. 'Twas ever thus. I’m rambling all over the landscape, but there’s a difference between rejecting people and practical steps adjusting the load on a strained system.
Long sigs suck resources with every post. Flirtations, “whassup?”, post count parties, etc. can be a helluva lotta fun but they suck resources we just don’t have to spare anymore. But the issues of conservation, for lack of a better word, shouldn’t be confused with rejection of all those terrific new folks with a helluva lot to say. There’s more than ever to talk about, and fascinating people to do it with. We just need to figure out ways and means.
Done blithering,
Veb
I wanted to address this. When I made my second post to this thread, I originally only came back to post my thoughts about cliques (that they weren’t harmful IMO unless they were exclusionary). I didn’t want to get sucked into a debate about anything else, but I didn’t feel I could NOT address you criticizing Guinastasia for saying something nice about me.
I consider myself a loyal friend, and it would bother me greatly if one of my friends got criticized for being my friend, or for saying something nice about me, and I just let it happen without defending them. The only thing I meant to “take up” with you, was that I thought criticizing Guinastasia for being nice to me was being out of line. I have to take up for a friend who’s catching heat on my account. From what I gather of you, I know you’d do the same for your friends. And I respect you for it.
Many of the points made about hijacking are well taken, and I can certainly see your (and other people’s) point of view. One thing I’d add though, is that it’s one thing to hijack a GQ thread about Dead Sea Scrolls, “What’s wrong with my car” or “La Grange points” or a GD thread about Gore vs. Bush, Racism in America, etc. I don’t expect to see said topics degenerating into silliness, backtalk, cutesy stuff, either.
But it’s yet another thing to “hijack” a thread about blowjobs (“So I was sucking my husband’s dick”), masturbating in the shower (“Shower–standing up or sitting down”) or “Which Shakespearean character would you like to fuck?” I mean, aren’t these threads kind of “anything goes” by their nature? Many, if not most of my “hijacks” take place in these type of threads, and to be honest, I didn’t see it as hijacking because I didn’t see these threads as *possible * to hijack. Does anyone really open these threads and expect them NOT to degenerate into silliness? (I’m not talking about a GQ thread about sex, of course)
For my part, I’ve already stated a willingness to be especially careful to answer the OP if I’m going to comment on a friend’s post. I do hope that effort is appreciated. But some of the sexually related threads opened above (and there DO seem to be a lot of them), there’s really not much of an OP to be hijacked, if you know what I mean.
**
Nacho4Sara, first of all, I do know that you’ve never started a pit thread against anyone (I registered here a month after you, and I was lurking over a month before I signed on). My only “beef” with you was to defend Guinastasia for being kind to me.
As to your upcoming Shakespeare 351 class, I’ll help you if I can. I mean that sincerely, and you are more than welcome to e-mail me. 
Addressing Coldfire’s comments: With respect to sig length, I trust that the length of my current sig isn’t objectionable. I do understand the issues about sig frequency (in particular) and about hijacking threads. As I said above, certain threads are by their very nature going to get hijacked–particularly sexual ones. But of course I’d agree that there are many serious topics, particularly but not exclusively in GQ and GD that shouldn’t be hijacked. (I like to think I don’t do this, and would honestly welcome input if the mods disagree. Though I’m pretty sure Manny would have warned me if the tenor of my GQ posts wasn’t acceptable.)
I also understand the complaint about opening too many threads, or ones of limited interest. Again, I welcome a serious examination of the threads I’ve opened, or the ones which bear my name in the title. I don’t want to “hog” the board, and I don’t truly believe that I do. I’m more than willing to listen to a moderator or administrator, if they disagree.
**
I see your point. I quite agree that honoring a deceased poster is not at all like sigs which cite, as you say, flirting, infatuation or innuendo.
The comparison I wished to make was to my current sig (without the Diane’s dream reference). Perhaps people have a difficult time believing this, but my sig really has nothing to do with flirting. Try reading it straight: I say that one poster is my favorite, and then I thank my other friends here.
No frills. No kisses. No {{{all the ladies of the SDMB}}}. No references to who I’d like to do the nasty with. Nothing like that, and if I’d meant to be flirtatious, I’d have used that stuff. I removed the link to Diane’s dream before I made my first post to this thread, and that was the only thing that was even approaching innuendo.
About the only thing I could do to make my sig any LESS flirtatious, while at the same time honor my friends (which I genuinely wish to do, believe it or not) would be to draft some legal language: “The party of the first part would like to thank the party of the second part for being the party of the first part’s friend.”
**
I agree. I meant–and I guess I should have made this clearer–that honoring a friend (or more than one) who’s still with us shouldn’t be a subject of derision any more than showing respect for one who’s deceased. Can we agree on that? Because the former is all I mean to do with my current sig.
Coldfire, you repeatedly reference “flirting” in your last response. I agree that comparing “cyberflirting” with paying tribute to…well, ANYONE, is not only stupid, it’s disrespectful. But when I speak of “paying tribute to friends”, or “showing appreciation”, or “being kind”, that has nothing to do with flirting. I didn’t even USE the word “flirting” in my last response!
My talk of honoring friends (particularly in context with my current sig) has NOTHING to do with flirting. Read what I wrote that way, and you might see that we don’t differ all that much.
TVeblen–I meant what I said about you. I genuinely admire your coolheadedness. Nor is that meant as a backhanded slap at Coldfire, whose opinion I very much respect.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to add my sig to that last post. Force of habit, and I’m working on it.
I will ask Coldfire or TVeblen (or any other mod)–is it too long? I was under the understanding that the present length is well within what’s considered allowable.
No, this one is fine, DRY.
“Flirtation” can be substituted by “Paying continuous tribute to friends” as far as the invalidity of comparison goes when referenced to a “Wally” sig. All the current “friendliness” sigs are in another league and should be judged differently. That was my point.
Now stop apologising already.
I’ve been following this thread for several days and I’ve learned more here than a month of lurking.
I saw several signatures referring to Wally, and thought nothing of it. I thought he was a poster that I hadn’t run across yet. When I read that he was dead, and held in such high esteem, I did a search.
Apparently, this man had an instictive feel for how a board should be. And I agree with Coldfire. He would have kicked some ass in this thread and then would have gone back to MPSIMS to demonstrate what that forum is really about.
When I was here, briefly, in the AOL days (I miss the picture of the brain on the front page. It was so apt),you could read the entire board on your break.
Things have changed. In some ways for the better, in some for the worse.
But people, there’s AIM, there’s Instant Messenger, there’s ICQ, there even a thing called E-Mail.
Stop cluttering up the boards with junk that is only of interest to you and your three friends.
If you want to tell us about how you killed a child’s gerbil, we want to hear about it.
If you post that you tried to phone me and got no answer, we don’t.