What Exit --I’m watching you. You watch yourself.
I hadn’t really noticed an emphasis on bondage (I have no idea what dead horse lissener is accused of flogging), but I think that there is an element of too muchness (is so a phrase) here. Someone says X and then Y corrects him or modifies X, then there are 5 people who also correct and/or modify X or correct the modification or modify the correction etc…it’s the nature of the beast. And like life, some unfortunate folk get stuck with stories or reps that they can’t shake for love or money. Jokes do get old, though.
I still disagree. If you post a post whose only purpose is to goad another Doper into a reaction, well then you deserve a modding. And without your email, so we can see the sense in which you were told that I would be better off not responding–whether, in other words, the consequences of my responding were presumed to be forthcoming from the master baiters, or from the mods–then I’m going to presume that the mod was not lying to you about the reasons for the admonition, and rather that you misinterpreted. I’m not prohibited from discussing any particular topics. But I’m not stupid; I know what subjects will open me up to the bait crew. Casting a baited hook to get me–or anyone–to cross that line is jerkish, and is specifically prohibited under an unmentionable word, and you deserved a modding, IMHO.
Is that any clearer? It wasn’t MY status that was in question; it was the casting of a baited hook with the hope to reel me in–YOUR behavior. The mod mentioning my “special” circumstance could just as easily been an attempt to draw a picture for you of the nature of your offense. Bowling is bowling, which is also true of words that may or may not rhyme with that.
Further, if you’re going to protest the semantics of the modding, the burden of producing those semantics is on you. You were a childish jerk, and you were called on it. The lucky part? You were called on it in private. The retarded part? You brought it out anyway.
That’s a real USA Today way to crunch you numbers. You get 7% for cross referencing the word “bondage”. What happens if you search for “tied”, “submissive”, etc. etc. and weed out the duplicates?
It spells out “Paul is dead…” in ASCII over and over.
Do you think it’d be a much larger percentage? If so, go for it. I can’t see spending that much time on searching and doing the math. Seems a bit obsessive. “Squicky,” even.
And since I didn’t get a modding, your point again is…?
It’s really not my fault if you can’t tell the difference between teasing and trolling. It’s also really not my fault if you can’t control your behaviour in response to being teased.
Oooh, nice skirting of the rules there. Love the “I’m accusing you of trolling but I didn’t use the word so I’m not really doing it” motif.
What. The fuck. Ever. The Mod in question did not say that I’d broken any rule in teasing you. Believe me, the Mod is quick enough on the trigger that had I actually broken a rule it would have been made abundantly clear in the thread and you’d be seeing “BANNED” under my name. I attempted in the original post to give you a little good-natured ribbing. The email to me was because of the Mod’s fear that you would be unable to control yourself. I can’t think of another poster on any topic who’d rate that sort of response.
My point is that you should focus entirely on semantics, to avoid the actual point of my post. :rolleyes:
Yeah, um, except obviously I can.
Normally I’d not have skated so close. But I figured since we were discussing a moot thread, a dead post, and it’s not a live accusation of present behavior; it was an attempt to understand a past occurrence. But whatever. If a mod remarks on it, I’ll take my lumps.
In other words, the mod was admonishing you–in private–for being a jerk. Calling it “good natured” just makes you seem like a disingenuous jerk. And how the fuck do you know? the admonishment was private. How many other private admonishments are you privy to?
You know what, Otto? Bottom line is you were being a jerk, and you got called on it. Dance what ever semantic dance you want to convince us all of the uniqueness of the particular situation in which you found yourself being a jerk–focus once again on the pointless area beside the point–whatever. But bottom line? You were being a jerk, and you were called on. The fact the mod was forthcoming enough to try to explain why they thought your behavior was jerky should not be fodder for a semantic defense of why your jerkiness should be allowed a technical exception. I mean seriously. What you’re claiming is that you should be allowed to be a jerk because I’m not spefically prohibited from discussing the topic you were being a jerk about. Stand back and do the math dude. Anyone who follows a poster from one thread to another and tried to goad a reaction in the second thread based on content of the previous, unrelated thread is being a jerk. Whether it’s you or RikJay or whoever lobbing your brilliant “showgirlz is teh suxx0rz” barbs across unrelated threads, or Evil Captor and his giggly stalkers, it’s still childish and jerkish. Deal with it.
This is not just about me. As most of you who’ve been paying attention, I’m one of Evil Captor’s biggest detractors around here. But I don’t “tease him goodnaturedly” :rolleyes: in unrelated threads, because that would make me look like 12-year-old jerk. You, however, want a pass, because you lack such shame.
I hate when the board eats my Post: I’ll try again.
lissener: While I agree with you on the OP being right, I have noticed that you can’t let things go. I think this is the reason people needle you and “poke you with a stick”.
This thread is a good example. The back and forth between you and Otto look silly to an observer. I know it takes two of you to do this, but I see you in these verbal brawls quite often.
Perhaps you can let the little shit go and just fight the big battles. eleanorigby: I’ll watch myself. [sheepish] Sorry [/sheepish]
I didn’t cross reference with the word bondage - I found an old post of Evil Captor’s saying he went through the last 100 posts he made, and counted 7 bondage references.
Sure, the accused doing the counting might not be the best metric, but it’s what we have for Otto as well, so that seems fair
The thing about this is that 1) anyone familiar with **lissener **should know he does not let things go easily, which makes the constant prodding of him worse 2) **Otto **is the one that won’t let this go as this at least the second time I have seen him complain about his private warning in public and 3) Otto is definitely familiar with lissener and board policy and should have known better then and now.
Hell, I’ll even admit to being at least partly responsible for his warning since I took his post as obvious flamebait and reported it to Dex with exactly those words. And I did that and say this as no chum of lissener’s. He and I have had words in the past and I haven’t seen a Verhoeven film I’ve liked but, Jesus, the constant needling of him is tiresome and not the least bit amusing.
You know, lissener, you’re taking this waaaaaay more seriously than I am. If it does your little heart good to think what you think, then more power to you. Sit there in your Fortress of Smugnitude secure in your convictions. I’ve already put more effort into trying to defend a throwaway comment that really requires no defense than I ever meant to, so if you want to keep on pitbulling this shit you can do it without me.
And both times it was on-topic to the thread in which it was posted. But don’t worry your pretty little head about it. As I just said, I’ve put more energy into this than I ever intended to. Not to go all drama queen about it, but I know better than you or lissener or any Mod ever can what was going on inside my head when I made the post, anything you say on the subject is nothing but your own flawed speculation, and feel free to join lissener in continuing to yammer on about it because I’m done with it.
The original was a throwaway post meant in good humor. lissener and anyone else who may have taken it in a way it was not intended, my apologies for any distress you may have experienced.
