and never mention the “duck incident” around Colibri.
Semi-famous is a very big stretch for some relatively unknown crybaby.
I have to mention here that I would not be proud to have a rule that actually turned an insulting (as in insulting the intelligence of people older than 11) point that I had made in the past (theoretically speaking) and turning it around into claiming that it is now an insult against me.
IMHO what SA did was very insulting and dumb, it was a sorry attempt at protecting the legacy of a coach that protected a paedophile. In any case, it seems that the rule is more related to harassment than any judgement on who is insulting who.
Agreed on all counts. That point is that if such a reference isn’t inherently insulting (as this board defines that term), then there’s no reason for a poster to know it is off-limits.
Incidentally, I am among the very unpopular minority who think SA got more flak than he deserved for that thread. The only thing worse is making a rule that forever enshrines one stupid argument. I rest happy knowing that people have forgotten the worst arguments I’ve made on this board.
There has been exactly zero evidence of any such thing.
And you should know better than to be making such claims in this forum.
You wait, I got your number and I’m biding my time.
:rolleyes:
That was an opinion dude. In any case if hypothetically speaking (another thing you missed, an hypothetical) I had claimed that giants are moving the continents under the earth’s crust and defended that idea for ages even when confronted with what serious investigations did found I think it would be fair for me to get digs from time to time for being so stubborn with little or no evidence.
Incidentally you are also claiming then that there is zero evidence that the ruling has more to do with preventing harassment rather than being insulting.
I suspect it is no longer relevant since Opal has passed away, but I think there was some kind of rule about not saying the word “buckeyes” after the epic pit thread of several years ago.
Fortunately, I made most of them with my sock, Rand Rover.
[Seriously though, whatever happened to that guy?]
What was the insult?
Couldn’t manage to keep posting here; Being pleasant to everybody gets tiring, you know.
He lives like three blocks from me, which I sussed out from a thread he’d posted about a problem he was having near his home once (and he confirmed that w/ me privately.) I know the block but not which house, but they’re all giant and expensive so his claims of being well off and stuff all those years wasn’t an act, FWIW. Guess I should go knock on some doors.
True, the flak was unfairly harsh.
Ah, if only that were true in my case…:o
No kidding! I vaguely recall him living in Chicago, so I automatically picture the Home Alone house.
Incorrect. There is a rule against direct insults outside of the Pit. That was an indirect insult.
What RNATB was actually doing with that post is something we’re not supposed to accuse people of outside the Pit so I characterized it as an insult instead.
Going on record here as someone who knows all about the thing with SA and the tube-which-shall-not-be-named, and had no idea that there was a rule about it.
Same here.
About where I come down. Unless it is a warnable offense independent of the specific commentary ( and I see some are arguing in this case it was ), it shouldn’t be a first strike warning. I actually do believe someone could be aware of that mudfight and not have seen the subsequent debates in ATMB. The argument that a prolific poster must have been aware of the rule is silly IMHO - it’s a big board and people miss stuff all the time.
If it’s non-intuitive rule the correct response for a first offense is to tell them to knock it off, not a formal warning.
There’ve also been numerous mod notes and mod threats over that last few years in almost every forum on the board about it. Again, it really strains credulity that RNAYB didn’t know about it. The mods get fed up having to deal with it and perhaps they finally decided that since mod notes weren’t doing the trick they’d kick it up a notch to see if people would finally start to take them seriously about it.
FWIW, I got a warning recently for violating a mod note I didn’t see. ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’ is pretty much the answer I got in my protest thread, so even if we stretch credulity and assume RNATB really didn’t know about it, he’s been around her long enough and active in enough forums that he should have known about it. As it put to me, there’s no point if issuing mod notes and warnings if a person can avoid them simply by claiming not to have known about them.