And I learned that you are able to take correction w/o going apeshit. An admirable trait.
Damnit, jjimm! I’m a doctor, not a lexicologist!
IANAD
That could have been the standard of the past but that is no longer the case as Frank stated in this very thread.
If the mods post in the thread, it is in fact allowed.
Can we please, for Og’s sake, label this whole topic “A Jason”, meaning everyone tries to kill it, but it just won’t fucking die!! I mean, how many threads have we had now, stemming from the one original borderline-snarky-but-not-even-close-to-gang-rape query in GQ?
Applause.
It is the same old don’t be a jerk rule.
Ribbing a doper for asking a foolish question, or a question foolishly, is common friendly communication in these fora. Not jerkish at all. Even suggesting a possibility that the poster is phobic is fine if the evidence is reasonable. The OP’s idea that this lets people go be pricks is wrong since being a prick is being a jerk which is explicitly against the rules.
…so can you explain why the question is foolish?
You got it. Snarky replies, to the rather mild level seen in that thread, are allowed. In my experience, they have always been allowed in GQ. It is a judgement call as to when snark rises to the level of definite insult, but it would appear that the remarks in that thread did not do so, in the opinion of two mods and, based on the other threads about it, the majority of other posters.
This has always been a somewhat rough-and-tumble place. Delicate flowers have a tough time here.
I thought it was asked foolishly, the question had value, but it was asked in a way that suggested the OP writer was germophobic.
“That means that the filth from some stranger’s dirty underwear, or whatever, is being smeared onto my things.” and “but I can’t believe that this is a standard practice when it is so clearly an unsanitary intrusion.” both suggest the OP allready believes the practice is very unsanitary, and she is clearly squicked out by the idea. She is allready sure that the practice is an issue, and wants to know whether it is being addressed by those in charge of luggage handeling.
If she simply asked “Is there any danger of your luggage items becoming contaminated with biological dirt from other peoples luggage, since luggage security searchers don’t change gloves between searchin each bag” or similar then the OP would have been neutral and would have gotten just factual information.
As it was the OP was like saying “OMG isn’t it disgusting how some people will use public restrooms! Don’t they know that other people also use those same restrooms and some of them have horrible diseases. Using public restrooms is gross. Who agrees with me?”
Ahem. Ahem.
You’re welcome.
*Bolding mine
That may be the case, as in the ATMB thread I stated that if that was the case, perhaps its time to look at the rules a bit closer for GQ.
If the board ever hopes to stay increasing membership, and not stagnate or lose people through stupid snark in a (What I “thought” was) snark free zone. Then I guess all is well. Look no one offended me, it takes more then some words over a fucking screen to do that, but it did offend a member. In a zone that should not be a mini-pit.
You have the PIT for snark, you have GD for low level snark, GQ should be for answering questions or staying the fuck out of the thread.
*I am pretty sure this is not a board based on the majority of the posters opinions if that was the case, things would be a helluva lot different. If I was to do a poll in MPSIMS I think the results of this same question would be different then this unofficial poll done in the Pit.
No, we have the pit to call people, among other things, “a loathsome bitch.” The rest of the board is a free-fire zone for snarkiness, and always has been. A clever snark is arguably the most valuable comodity on the SDMB, next to a good cite. We’ve made it this far on snark, I think we need a more compelling reason to change that now than just sparing the feelings of one over-sensitive poster who’d been here less than a year.
Okay I understand that
No I beg to differ, in GQ once upon a time if it went astray of the OP question a mod would kindly remind people to stick to answering the question, then with said question answered the thread would be locked if all the extra’s where being tossed into it. Manhattan comes to mind there. Wasn’t so much for snarkiness but for the life of me I couldn’t find any good snarky posts in GQ to compare with this assault on brightpenny. I have seen some mild snark mixed in with an actual answer to the OP or a bit of GD slipping in.
You said next to a good cite, something the snark herd didn’t even attempt. You know answering the question with a cite or ya know something. And do you consider “Live in a bubble like Howard Hughes” and an agreement party clever snark?
[quote]
I was kinda getting into the groove of the message you where conveying into you went into the elitist “who’d been here less than a year” remark. Fuck you if you think you are better or more deserving of respect for your feelings if you are a “charter member” In the fight against ignorance, I guess you missed the part where being around longer does not make you superior.
The member it offended was clearly hypersensitive, and based on her subsequent responses seems to me to be quite neurotic. I don’t think you can use her as a an example of a typical member of this board.
Sorry, this verges on the delusional. Manhattan was quite likely not merely to snark, but to actually insult the author of an OP that appeared to be stupid to him. I know; he did it to me early in my career on the board. You are evidently reading some other board than I am.
I am NOT saying snark did not exist, I am saying questions with factual answers where answered! Minor snarkiness will be about anywhere on the internet. This was a group piling on with stupid ass snark with no attempts made at answering the question by the snarkers.
I will drop this right here and right now if you can find me another thread similiar to that one with the amount of snark/pile on to answer percentage.
And to reiterate I am in no way saying she wasn’t overly sensitive but should it be tolerated for a OP in GQ to be attacked by not one but a group of sharks. They smelled weakness and attacked, so fucking immature.
I guess if here OP was “Do people of color smell funny to everyone else” I can see this pile-on but her having a possible phobia, well that is not a reason to go for the kill.
Assault? In the original thread? Are you serious?
I’ll grant you, she’s been textually assaulted like a peanut in the Pit, now, but nothing remotely resembling that happened in the GQ thread.
…but you said the question was foolish. Do you no longer believe that? And if the OP is germophobic, so what? The question couldn’t be answered?
Well, from a General Questions point of view, is this statement false, regardless of degree?
…well, if the first part is true, then this statement would also be true, wouldn’t it? If not, cite?
…and it appears from some of the answers garnered in General Questions, the practice is unsanitary, just not to the degree that the OP believed. Whats wrong with being squicked out by the idea?
…well is it? 3.855AM works as luggage handler and states: “in fact, change gloves quite frequently. Not always between each bag, **but usually so. **” So does this mean there was a problem identified, which was addressed by the Baggage Handlers, with new proceedures put in place? Or not?
…the question was posted in General Questions by a fairly newbyish poster. Regardless of the contents of the OP, it should have been answered with just factual information. If the OP violated any “rules”, then the post should have been reported and no comment made. If the OP made some comments that could be classed as “ignorant”, then the best way to slap that down would be to post facts. UncleBeer posted some relevant citations, 3.855AM a relevent anecdote, everything else was pure speculation.
naita made an outright assertion, and when challenged by PatriotX to back it up, he/she didn’t, then admits that they were only “theorizing. " acsenray cited an article passed around the office, and concludes from that article that household items have more germs than the contents of luggage. TyCobb starts talking about how money has traces of cocaine, again no cite, and hardly any relevance to the OP. ** Lamar Mundane** states "This kind of stuff never even enters my mind. I am sure there are far more germs transferred from the airplane seat, the tray table, and the airline magazine than there are from the TSA inspectors, not to mention if you use the airplane toilet.” Nice assertion, where are the facts? He then states: “I think this qualifies as a phobia rather than a legitimate, rational concern.” By what thought process could that conclusion be reached?
Shangnasty then chimes in, agreeing with Lamar Mundane’s 'devestating logic, ’ implies the OP is concerned with trivial matters and drops the “bubble bomb.” It is only after all this nonsense that brightpenny really goes off the rails. 3.855AM 's anecdote shows that there was something to the OP, but because people considered that “I don’t think about that sort of thing” and “the OP was trivial in nature”, it doesn’t get any further than that.
…and if members of the public changed gloves every time they handled the doors at a public restroom, then your hyperbolic comparison may have had a point. As it stands, it reads nothing like the OP of the GQ thread.
By the way, here’s an active General Question framed as a rant that you may want to hijack: its gone 16 posts without any snark, and according to your criteria, if the question is framed as a rant, it’s open season to derail the thread, is it not?
By the end of the thread, I was left wondering, well, is brightpenny right? What is the answer to her question? If someone can show me how the level of snark in the thread contributed to the fight against ignorance that we apparently are all battling, it would be appreciated. Instead we now have a newbie leaving the boards and a question left unanswered. Some victory.
See, I have a lot of trouble seeing what happened to brightpenny as an “assault.” A lot of people thought her concern was baseless, and said so in a clever, mildly sarcastic manner. Why is it such a big deal?
Yeah, I thought it was fairly clever, and reasonably on-topic. Not sure what you mean by an “agreement party.” I guess you’re refering to the fact that most people responding to the thread felt the same way about the OP’s concerns? I don’t see what’s so objectionable about that.
No, I’m just superior by dint of being so much more totally awesome than everyone else on the boards.
As for how long brightpenny has been on the boards, I think it’s relevant because you were using her (apparent) departure from the boards to argue that the board culture ought to be changed. But the boards been around for, what ten years now? Longer? And it’s got thousands of paying customers, who apparently like the way things currently work, many of whom have been here for years. It’s too bad that brightpenny doesn’t fit into the climate here, but evidently, a lot of people do. Should we try to alter everything here to placate every new poster who shows up and doesn’t fit in? The obvious impracticality aside, in the long run, that’s going to cost the board far more members than will be lost by keeping things the way they are.
I was going to reply with some witty answers to the responses but after reading Banquet Bear’s post I really cannot add anything other then he/she was able to put what I was trying to say, into words.
*Assault, yes an assault, as in an attack. At least 4 attacked her mental state.
That link is not as persuasive as you think it is ;).
Daniel