# Hey Twickster...How Was This Warning Justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 16, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549 "2009-12-16T23:26:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/41 "2009-12-17T17:46:49Z")
I am having a hard time saying what I want to politely. But you only warned him because it was Lynn. That I am sure of. Hajario was nowhere near snarky enough to warrant a warning. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/42 "2009-12-17T20:24:49Z")
I really appreciate the support here and also at the Giraffeboards and even the Snarkpit. I think it’s only fair that I comment on this. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > And, to address the OP of this thread, that was a pretty weak warning for **Hajario**. I agree with other posters that an exchange like that should have earned both posters a “cool it, guys,” not an official warning. Me too, actually, but it’s her sandbox and she gets to make the rules. **twickster** has been clearly taking MPSIMS in a little bit of a different direction since she was bumped to Mod _as is her prerogative_. Negative commentary in celebrity memorial threads is discouraged now as is, apparently, a little bit of snark in regular, silly MPSIMS threads. I would like to clear one thing up. My response to **Lynn** ’s pie comment was absolutely not directed at her specifically. As **chacoguy** correctly observed, I was speaking in general, not in the specific. I was just amused by the pie thing. I thought that the whole eat a huge midnight snack thing was just something that was a running joke in _Flintstones_ cartoons or whatever. When I saw that I thought, “Wow, _ **people** _ actually do that. Whaddaya know?” As I said, **twicks** gets to make the rules so I accept the Official Warning, but in my opinion, it was a bad call, especially since **Lynn** escalated things. Staffers here have said many, many times in threads like these that if you have a problem with a post, you should report it, if you fight back to an inappropriate post, you will _both_ get wrist slapped. Since **Lynn** came back at me, we should have both been Warned or both been admonished or _at the very least_ a Warning for me and a “watch it” comment for **Lynn**. As you all probably know, I am a Moderator on the Giraffeboards. It’s been a hell of a lot of fun. One thing that I have learned, and this surprised me, is that the Moderators of a message board end up forming a pretty close bond. It comes from working together, reaching consensuses on things, joking around and blowing off steam. I have to assume that the same happens here so I presume that one of **twickster** ’s first reactions was to protect her friend from “attack.” In addition to that, **twickster** ’s [contempt](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10916176&postcount=53) for the “splinter boards” is well documented. It really is difficult to believe that personalities didn’t come into play and that’s fine but own it, don’t deny it. ---
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/43 "2009-12-17T22:05:49Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > I don’t understand this at all, in light of what **SmartAleq** posted. That post was in clarification to **ajb867** ’s question (raised due to my possibly ambiguous sentence) who thought I implied that you may not discuss Lynn’s original post in ATMB. I clarified that that was not the case. That raised another question about whether pitting a mod for their posts as a member was allowed, which I further clarified. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > **SmartAleq** was talking about how **Lynn Bodoni** talks about her bodily functions regularly; it had nothing to do with moderator actions. Correct. The mod/member distinction was made in response to **ajb867** ’s question. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > Also, would it be a defense against the personal insult warning that **SmartAleq** received if she posted a link to every time **Lynn Bodoni** has discussed her personal bodily functions on this board? In other words, I’m asking if a comment being the truth is a defense against a personal insult warning. Yes, as long as it is presented in a factual manner without characterization of the poster. In other words, my exception was to **SmartAleq** ’s choice of words. - **xash** Administrator ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/44 "2009-12-18T02:43:12Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > In addition to that, **twickster** ’s [contempt](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10916176&postcount=53) for the “splinter boards” is well documented. That contempt may be documented, somewhere, but you have not provided any evidence of it. The link you provided demonstrates exasperation for a few posters who are perceived, (correctly or incorrectly), as posting on the SDMB for the sole purpose of expressing displeasure with the SDMB. No opinion was expressed about other boards. Heck, no mention was made of other boards aside from an allusion to a place where the mentioned posters might be happier to post. No one needs to “own” views that are merely projected onto them. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/45 "2009-12-18T04:40:52Z")
**CarnalK** , I had not read the thread until this thread in ATMB was posted, so I wasn’t one who reported that thread. But I think they were justified in reporting it. Have you not noticed that others in _this_ thread have found _hajario’s_ comments to have been persistently snarky, completely off topic, deliberately offensive, and misinformative? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/46 "2009-12-18T05:07:09Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No one needs to “own” views that are merely projected onto them. You misunderstood me, **tom**. I was not asking her to own the view that she has contempt for the splinter boards although there were other comments than the one I posted but I can’t find them. I recall one thread where I called her on it and she actually did “own” it and apologized. In any event, what I asked her to own was that personalities came into play when my warning was issued. I believe that if it were two different people, the outcome would have been different which, by the way, I don’t have a problem with. To illustrate this another way, let’s take your forum. Suppose there was an OP that was mildly critical of something that the Israeli Government did. Wouldn’t anyone react differently towards it if it were started by a poster with a long history of pro-Israeli views versus one with a long history of anti-Israeli views versus a n00b making his first post? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/47 "2009-12-18T05:12:44Z")
> [@xash](#): > > That post was in clarification to **ajb867** ’s question (raised due to my possibly ambiguous sentence) who thought I implied that you may not discuss Lynn’s original post in ATMB. I clarified that that was not the case. That raised another question about whether pitting a mod for their posts as a member was allowed, which I further clarified. > > Correct. The mod/member distinction was made in response to **ajb867** ’s question. > > Yes, as long as it is presented in a factual manner without characterization of the poster. In other words, my exception was to **SmartAleq** ’s choice of words. > > - **xash** > Administrator Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/48 "2009-12-18T05:23:58Z")
**Giraffe** : Out of the topics that you listed: obesity, smoking, driving, debt, drugs, guns, bankruptcy, interracial marriage, sexual identity – obesity is the only subject that comes up fairly regularly at SDMB where a group of people are portrayed as being the scum of the earth. About the only group that gets more negative attention here are religious/Christian groups. There are other heavenly places where posters feel free to uh…stick their necks out and say exactly what they feel. I don’t see much snark in such places. It’s authoritarian rules that drive people nuts. In those other places I wouldn’t take the comments as seriously. It’s a little bit like being called “bitch” by your friends. I care about both places. > [@](#): > > **hajario** : I was just amused by the pie thing. I thought that the whole eat a huge midnight snack thing was just something that was a running joke in Flintstones cartoons or whatever. When I saw that I thought, “Wow, people actually do that. Whaddaya know?” Exactly what struck you as being a huge midnight snack? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/49 "2009-12-18T05:32:04Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Exactly what struck you as being a huge midnight snack? Maybe I overstated it a little but I truly believe that a piece of pie is a big snack. A handful of grapes or one of those small bags of potato chips is a regular snack. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Lynn\_Bodoni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e47c2d/32.png) [@Lynn\_Bodoni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lynn_Bodoni)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/50 "2009-12-18T09:15:54Z")
What makes it a big snack? The fact that it’s eaten at midnight? Or is it the type of food, or the serving size? Is it the person eating the pie? Many people eat a slice of pie for dessert, as part of a meal. I almost never eat a dessert. I’m diabetic, and my endocrinologist wants me to eat four or five smaller meals throughout the day, rather than two or three big ones. I’m scheduled for a meal sometime around midnight, every night. Some nights, that might be pie…and usually, by pie I mean a slice of pizza or pot pie, not a fruit or cream pie. Tonight, I had the other half of the individual pizza that I bought for dinner. Veggie lover’s pizza, no onions. I budget for my midnight meals in my diet. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/51 "2009-12-18T09:39:08Z")
> [@](#): > > **hajario** : Maybe I overstated it a little… A little? That one piece of pie reminded you of Fred Flintstone and the huge midnight snacks that were a running joke on that show. > [@](#): > > When I saw that I thought, “Wow, people actually do that. Whaddaya know?” You have lost your usual sense of balance. ---
**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/52 "2009-12-18T11:05:22Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > What makes it a big snack?..I…I’m…my…me…I’m…I…I…I…I…my…my… So, even though the clear reading of **hajario** ’s original comment in the exchange that led to the warning and his specific statements in this thread indicate that his was a general comment, rather than a directed one, you continue to make it about yourself. I think this just demonstrates that it was you who made a big deal over nothing in that thread, that it was you who was out of line, and it was you, not him who deserved the warning if only one was given. And really, by “pie” you mean pizza or pot pie? That’s even a bigger stretch of language than taking **haj** ’s original comment personally! ---
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/53 "2009-12-18T12:05:22Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > > [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > > > What makes it a big snack?..I…I’m…my…me…I’m…I…I…I…I…my…my… > > So, even though the clear reading of **hajario** ’s original comment in the exchange that led to the warning and his specific statements in this thread indicate that his was a general comment, rather than a directed one, you continue to make it about yourself. **akennett** , editing a user’s post inside the quote tags is not permitted on the SDMB. If you wish to change a post for effect, please use the quotation marks instead. Please do not repeat this. - **xash** Administrator ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/54 "2009-12-18T13:57:35Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > I think this just demonstrates that it was you who made a big deal over nothing in that thread, > **[Please help me find an invisible (?) thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=514143)** > > While on a break at work today I came across a thread about a doper who wanted to sell her crafts and was soliciting ideas to sell more successfully. I think it was Amazon Floozy Goddess, and I think it was in in IMHO, but it definitely was... Start with post #9. 'nuff said. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/55 "2009-12-18T16:07:34Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > What makes it a big snack? It’s my opinion that it’s big no matter who is eating it. > [@](#): > > I’m diabetic, and my endocrinologist … Did you miss that part where I said it wasn’t specifically about you? > [@Zoe](#): > > That one piece of pie reminded you of Fred Flintstone and the huge midnight snacks that were a running joke on that show. Yes. The late night snack described by **Lynn** put me in mind of a fictional late night snack. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/56 "2009-12-18T22:41:31Z")
Completely third party, disinterested, after the fact reading of the thread. **Lynn** made a joking comment about why someone might get up out of bed and wander around in a bathrobe. **hajario** made an observation about the assumption embedded in that comment, that people “eat **more** pie” (bolding added) at midnight. Assuming someone has already eaten some pie, and assuming that any pie at midnight is too much pie at midnight. Anyway, reasonable personal opinions in my mind. Then there is the remark about the BMIs in this country. That is snark directed at Americans in general, not Lynn in specific. Because **hajario** cited **Lynn Bodoni** , Lynn I guess felt the comment about eating a snack and having a large BMI was directed at her. I didn’t read it that way, but she felt the need to justify herself. So she chooses to post a bunch of personal information about herself and her family, about sleeping patterns and such, including her personal eating habits. I’m not sure how much “some cheese and crackers” constitutes - 3 crackers and 1 slice of cheese? A box of crackers and a “longhorn style” block? Vagueness left to the reader to interpret. Then Lynn posted: > [@](#): > > But go right ahead and keep jumping to conclusions. The exercise is good for you. Now is that a personal insult? A comment directed at a poster and not his post? A snark that begins being jerky? Regardless, to me it seems ironic that Lynn is accusing **hajario** of jumping to conclusions when she is the one assuming **hajario** ’s comments are about her. Next, **hajario** responds to a perceived personal snark with his own rebuttal about himself: > [@](#): > > I am well aware of the benefits of exercise and clearly _I_ am not the one who needs more of it. I think a point of ambiguity exists in the emphasis on “I”. Is that remark directed back at **Lynn Bodoni** , or is it directed at Americans in general? You know, the same Americans in general that the original comment was pointed at. If pointed at Lynn, then inappropriate. But _I_ don’t read it that way. I read it as the general comment. Maybe it’s just me. Then **twickster** posts a warning against **hajario** , but nothing against **Lynn Bodoni**. I suppose if **twickster** read that second comment as the more personal rather than general approach, the warning would make sense. To me, it seems much. But the warning seems to be phrased to address something different: **hajario** hijacking the thread about bathrobes to harp on America’s weight problem. Okay… But why no comment to **Lynn Bodoni** about her remark? Surely her remark was baiting **hajario** as much as **hajario** ’s original comment was baiting her. Moreso, to my opinion. But to me what is baffling is this **xash** said: > [@](#): > > Yes, as long as it is presented in a factual manner without characterization of the poster. In other words, my exception was to **SmartAleq** ’s choice of words. Please cite where **SmartAleq** characterizes **Lynn Bodoni** negatively. Here, I’ll make it easier - here’s the post: > [@](#): > > He did nothing of the sort. He made a general comment that Lynn twisted to be personal to her, and included a gratuitous insult. For which she hasn’t been warned, I note. Also of note, if it’s against the rules to talk about Lynn being fat, she ought to be banned by now because she’s the one who brings up her fat, her digestion, how often she shits and what it smells/looks/smears like, mentions fucking CATHETERS in that post under discussion, for gods sake, and in general spends quite a lot of time and effort rubbing other people’s noses in her bodily functions. So, please, by all means, MAKE it a banning offense to say anything at all about the fat, eating habits and any and all other TMI regarding the corpus Bodoni, and in true Dope style make it retroactive–and get that big old ban stick out and smack Lynn upside the noggin with it, because she’s the biggest offender. The only thing that looks _close_ to a characterization is “the corpus Bodoni”, but that is just a hifalutin phrasing for “the body of Bodoni”. Note that **SmartAleq** does **not** call Lynn fat. He refers to the weight status that she brings up. The only other line vaguely confusing is this > [@](#): > > a banning offense to say anything at all about the fat, eating habits and any and all other TMI regarding the corpus Bodoni, That might be misread, but you should parse it as “a banning offense to say anything at all about the fat, [the] eating habits and any and all other TMI…” In other words, “fat” was a list of objects owned by **Lynn Bodoni** that should be off limits, not a description of **Lynn Bodoni** and her eating habits. So, what is the choice of words that merit a warning? I’m genuinely confused. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/57 "2009-12-18T22:52:11Z")
Also, from the thread cited by **Fenris** **Lynn Bodoni** said: > [@](#): > > I have to wonder, too…you bold someone else’s name, but you don’t bold mine. I rather dislike the custom of bolding names, anyway, and now I wonder if you did that deliberately, as a slam at me. I think that you should either bold both names, or neither one. Speaking only for myself, as I might be guilty in my previous comment I bold usernames to set them off because they are often a string of words that are otherwise nonsensical, or confusing in the context of the sentence, precisely because they are not a recognizable “name”. I do try to evenhandedly bold everyone’s username when I cite them. Also, it can be tiresome posting some full usernames. But sometimes if I am referring to an abbreviated name, especially if it is an honest to goodness _name_, I don’t feel it needs bolding to set off that it is a name. So I may forego bolding. Thus if I refer to you as “ **Lynn Bodoni** ”, I will bold the name, but if I refer to you as “Lynn”, I may not. It has no bearing on how I do or do not feel about you as a poster, it is merely a reflection of the fact that the emphasis is not [del]required for[/del] strongly helpful for clarity, so I leave it out. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/58 "2009-12-18T22:56:06Z")
The “Have The Last Slice Of Pie In The Fridge At Midnight, Doctor’s Orders” Diet is a new one on me. Ignorance fought! ---
**Author:** ![xash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c6cbf5/32.png) [@xash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xash)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/59 "2009-12-18T23:30:03Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > So, what is the choice of words that merit a warning? I’m genuinely confused. **SmartAleq** ’s post, taken as a whole, would to a neutral observer come across as a characterization of **Lynn** , rather than a presentation of facts. Specific parts that prompted a warning include the following (not all of which are characterizations, as you say), but these parts are **not** to be read in isolation, but rather in context of the entire post and the fact that it was posted in ATMB: > [@](#): > > how often she shits and what it smells/looks/smears like > [@](#): > > spends quite a lot of time and effort rubbing other people’s noses in her bodily functions > [@](#): > > corpus Bodoni > [@](#): > > smack Lynn upside the noggin with it A mod ruling in such cases is often subjective, and it is certainly possible that your interpretation differs from mine. However, in my judgment, the warning was a reasonable and fair call. Hope that makes it a bit clearer. If all rulings were objective, we wouldn’t need mods 🙂 - **xash** Administrator ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549/60 "2009-12-19T06:19:51Z")
> [@](#): > > **Irishman** : > > Next, **hajario** responds to a perceived personal snark with his own rebuttal about himself: > > > [@](#): > > > > : I am well aware of the benefits of exercise and clearly _I_ am not the one who needs more of it. > > I think a point of ambiguity exists in the emphasis on “I”. Is that remark directed back at **Lynn Bodoni** , or is it directed at Americans in general? You know, the same Americans in general that the original comment was pointed at. > > If pointed at Lynn, then inappropriate. But I don’t read it that way. I read it as the general comment. Maybe it’s just me. If **hajario** had been directing his comment at Americans in general, he would have written: “…_I_ am not one who needs more of it.” If his comment was intended to be directed toward one person, he would have written: …_I_ am not the one who needs more of it." That last sentence is what he wrote and it leaves the question in the mind of the reader: Well then, who _is_ THE one who needs more of it?" I don’t know what was on **hajario’s** mind when he wrote the statement. But from the principles of composition and syntax, that is what he should have considered for reasonable communication. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-twickster-how-was-this-warning-justified/521549.md?page=4)