# In the matter of Ed's thread take down **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [June 24, 2014, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519 "2014-06-24T09:28:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/81 "2014-06-24T21:02:44Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > I don’t think I’ve ever been so ashamed to be a Doper. > > So you guys get it into your head that MM threatened litigation, so screw him he’s unworthy of any sympathy and let’s just basically nail him to the wall. > > Because reasons. > > How fucking petty. Many posters have wished to get things they have posted and regretted deleted. Many posters do not like the way certain threads they start are heading and the criticism that it starts and they ask for the thread to be closed and/or deleted. Their wishes are rarely if ever granted. And those are active members of this board. Some random minor public figure is criticized for his public and real behavior and he gets special treatment. The matter would have been forgotten long ago if he didn’t dredge it up himself. So yeah, I don’t see the reason why it should be treated differently. Now its not a huge deal to me. I’ll forget it soon enough. But while this discussion is active I’ll just drop my opinion in here for what its worth. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Speaking only for myself it has nothing to do with his impotent threat of a lawsuit which would have only further increased public interest in and criticism of his behavior that night (and boosted the street cred of the SDMB when they prevailed, which would have been a 100% certainty) > > It was his attempt to strongarm and bully a SDMB poster into removing something he didn’t like to see in his vanity searches as his wife played good cop with a sleazy and transparent attempt to bribe the same SDMB poster with “inside info” about Hollywood that stuck in my craw. And this. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/82 "2014-06-24T21:08:14Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened? Probably not a good idea. I’m not sure if its prohibited but I doubt Ed will like the deleted thread rehashed. Otherwise why delete it? But you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. Go to the Ed thread a few posts down from this one. Google the name. You’ll see mention of the deleted thread but not the thread itself. Then go to his wiki and read about the controversy. I’m sure you can fill in the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/83 "2014-06-24T21:12:33Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened? There’s a sound mixer who was rude about another sound mixer after he (the first sound mixer) won an oscar in 2007 and while he (the second sound mixer) was in a hospital while his mother died. Equipoise posted in some relevant thread at the time about how she didn’t particularly care for his comments. He came back 7 years later and sent her a PM on this board demanding she remove her post and being generally obnoxious and ill-behaved about her and her comment. And now Ed has apparently removed the thread entirely because he wanted to? Or something. Apparently being nice to paying members by cleaning up their posting histories is beyond the pale but asskissing up to random sound mixers is completely appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/84 "2014-06-24T21:19:02Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Pardon me for not being a cool kid but could someone give a quick rundown on what happened? Ed gave [a full retelling](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=726709) in the other thread. Basically, Michael Minkler won an oscar a few years back for sound and then made snotty remarks to the press about another sound guy who didn’t win. Someone made a pit thread about it, telling Minkler to go fuck himself, which as you know for this board, is no big deal, and everyone forgot all about it until a couple years ago when Minkler showed up, threatened to sue the Pit thread author (via PM) and threatened to sue the Dope & the Reader. Eventually, Minkler called and apologized and asked nicely, so Ed agreed to take down the pit thread. I think it’s a horrible development, although I could believe that it was made above Ed’s pay grade. You know we get lots of people who beg for their threads or posts to be deleted and we always tell them, “Nope. That really just happened. Live with it”. I don’t get why Minkler deserves special consideration, even if he asked very, _very_, nicely. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/85 "2014-06-24T21:20:41Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Probably not a good idea. I’m not sure if its prohibited but I doubt Ed will like the deleted thread rehashed. Otherwise why delete it? Ed rehashed it, himself. That part is my favorite part. ---
**Author:** ![Accidental\_Martyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@Accidental\_Martyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Accidental_Martyr)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/86 "2014-06-24T21:25:13Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Ed gave [a full retelling](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=726709) in the other thread. Basically, Michale Minkler won an oscar a few years back for sound and then made snotty remarks to the press about another sound guy who didn’t win. Someone made a pit thread about it, telling Minkler to go fuck himself, which as you know for this board, is no big deal, and everyone forgot all about it until a couple years ago when Minkler showed up, threatened to sue the Pit thread author (via PM) and threatened to sue the Dope & the Reader. Eventually, Minkler called and apologized and asked nicely, so Ed agreed to take down the pit thread. The original pit thread was revived briefly in 2012. MM’s contact with the OP of the pit thread and his threat of legal action was in April of this year. ---
**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:** [June 24, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/87 "2014-06-24T21:33:54Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Sigh. Please note that Ed said: Please note that the present request was NOT accompanied by threats of litigation, despite what many of your are saying. Bullshit! If there weren’t threats of litigation at some point, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion and the original thread would never have been locked, let alone deleted. Quit blowing smoke up our butts. That’s ok though. I think that Ed is actually much more clever than most are giving him credit for. It’s my suspicion that Ed was under pressure to do what he did by his management. His explanatory post gives anyone all of the information that they need to Google the name of the person in question and find out the whole story including an archive of the missing thread. The direct result of all of this is that the sound mixer’s story, including in some cases the legal bullying, is now enshrined in at least a couple of reddit threads and on a few other message boards and blog posts. In addition, his Wikipedia page now mentions the incident when it didn’t before all of this. Had he let the seven year old thread pass, it’s safe to say that many more people would never have heard of it. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/88 "2014-06-24T21:43:48Z")
I’m reminded a bit of the last days of the _Dysfunctional Family Circus_. For those who missed this wonderful thing, people replaced the lame original captions with new ones. This hobby had existed in various forms for a while, but a webmaster named Spinn built an interface to allow people to submit captions and an editorial interface for mods to sort the wheat from the chaff, and brought it from moderately amusing to (on occasion) a work of genius. Hundreds of cartoons were converted from unfunny to funny (as well as made sick and twisted as necessary). Eventually, it caught the attention of the publisher of the _Family Circus_. They threatened legal action, and any number of lawyers volunteered to defend Spinn and the web site _pro bono_, as this appeared to be a very clear example of Fair Use, that adding new captions to an existing cartoon was substantially transformative. One really got the impression that lawyers were itching to take this one to the Supreme Court, just to set the precedent. Eventually, the cartoonist Bil Keane himself phoned Spinn and asked him to close the site, that the wife and kids depicted in the cartoon were his _own_ wife and kids. Spinn agreed, but allowed the site to stay up until cartoon #500, giving the posters some measure of, as they say…_closure_. Ultimately, of course, [archives](http://dfc.furr.org/)of the site exist. The only thing that disappeared was the community that made the captions. This situation is exactly like that one, except: [ul] [li]Bil Keane was, from all reports, a genuinely nice guy.[/li][li]Bil Keane didn’t issue threats of a lawsuit.[/li][li]Thel Keane didn’t offer to share gossip about other cartoonists with Spinn.[/li][li]Expressing an opinion that a public figure is a jerk is even more clearly protected speech than substituting cartoon captions.[/li][/ul] One wonders if **Equipoise** would have asked Ed to remove the thread if [Redacted] had offered her one of his Oscars? It’s not as if [Redacted] doesn’t have them to spare. And **Equipoise** is very fond of shiny things. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/89 "2014-06-24T21:57:01Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > Some reading this thread might be surprised to learn that I actually defended the guy to some extent in the deleted thread. I think I was the only one though. How did you defend the guy in a 7 year old deleted thread if you just joined in January 2014. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/90 "2014-06-24T22:01:39Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > How did you defend the guy in a 7 year old deleted thread if you just joined in January 2014. :dubious: Presumably because, as people in this thread have already made clear, the disappeared thread might have been started seven years ago, but was reactivated with new posts on more than one occasion, including earlier this year. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/91 "2014-06-24T22:02:04Z")
The thread was resurrected earlier this year after he joined. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/92 "2014-06-24T22:02:07Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > How did you defend the guy in a 7 year old deleted thread if you just joined in January 2014. :dubious: A thread can be added to and brought back after 7 years. If you look back in this thread you will see **Mr. Nylock** listed by **Crazyhorse**. If the three could be viewed, we could discuss the point further; but the thread can not be viewed, so why bother. Once things start getting deleted, all sort of ideas about what may or may not have happened can no longer be verified unfortunately. Are you not currently walking on thin ice you spoke of upthread by questioning the truthfulness of what I am posting? I really wish you would just stop responding to my posts if you cannot be civil. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/93 "2014-06-24T22:17:22Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > We’ve done all of that for fifteen years, about literally thousands of people. And every single comment posted about those people is still there, for all the world to find. But an exception is made for one relatively obscure guy because…well, to be honest, i’m still not sure why. It certainly wasn’t explained very convincingly. If one of those thousands have a thread that’s #3 or #5 on google, then there _might_ be a precedent, denials of the same notwithstanding. That’s an aspect that was missing from your post. Also and separately: 1. The internet is forever. But a better world might have _some_ sense of a statute of limitations. Just as we don’t throw people into prison for life for shoplifting, having one’s worst moment highlighted for all eternity seems a tad excessive to me. It would be different if the thread was on page 111 of google. But it wasn’t. 2. A seven year statute of limitations, as a general guideline, seem eminently reasonable to me. But then again, a threat to sue was made in 2014. So arguably that could knock Redacted out to 2021 under my framework. OTOH2, google is currently thinking over this matter, so I suspect there may be further developments before then. 3. The suits don’t want a lawsuit. The suits also run a media company. The suits therefore will have problems with caving to explicit threats of a lawsuit. 4. If you want to see what google provides for the average Joe, go here: [https://www.startpage.com/](https://www.startpage.com/) 5. #6 on that list is the Girafffffeboarddss. Redacted isn’t out of the woods yet. See Streisand effect. I’ll further note that Devil’s advocacy doesn’t play well at the GB, so Redacted will remain embarrassed for some time. 6. I commend those posters who disagree with the decisions of this board while still remaining polite and acknowledging that the board’s executive decision is their executive decision. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/94 "2014-06-24T22:26:18Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If one of those thousands have a thread that’s #3 or #5 on google, then there _might_ be a precedent, denials of the same notwithstanding. That’s an aspect that was missing from your post. Not missing. Irrelevant. Why should the SDMB take responsibility for what results are produced by a search engine? The rest of your points are equally irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/95 "2014-06-24T22:28:18Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > I thought you meant the SDMB hissyfit itself was mentioned–_that_ would be a full circle Streisand Effect. Now that the matter has reached a conclusion and there are clear and credible citations documenting it, it would probably be fair game to include it in the Wiki. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/96 "2014-06-24T22:30:37Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Not missing. Irrelevant. ok. You were wondering why this case was different than thousands of other discussions, and I thought I might answer that question by showing the difference. > [@](#): > > Why should the SDMB take responsibility for what results are produced by a search engine? Because actions have consequences and the board has, “…no desire to prolong his embarrassment indefinitely.” The remainder of my post was a discussion of the general principles underlying the issue. It was not intended to disparage your post. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Now that the matter has reached a conclusion and there are clear and credible citations documenting it, it would probably be fair game to include it in the Wiki. Probably so. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/97 "2014-06-24T22:36:50Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Now that the matter has reached a conclusion and there are clear and credible citations documenting it, it would probably be fair game to include it in the Wiki. Wikipedia specifically bans references from forums and blogs. Now if a journalist writes about this situation, _that_ reference could be included. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/98 "2014-06-24T22:40:28Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 1. If you want to see what google provides for the average Joe, go here: [https://www.startpage.com/](https://www.startpage.com/) Thank you for that. Links #3, #6 and #10 are all about [Redacted] behavior, while #4 is the video evidence of same. Great job, Internet! ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/99 "2014-06-24T22:46:02Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > ok. You were wondering why this case was different than thousands of other discussions, and I thought I might answer that question by showing the difference. From the point of view of the board, there is no difference. The board is not responsible for the ranking algorithms of a search engine. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Because actions have consequences and the board has, “…no desire to prolong his embarrassment indefinitely.” Yes, actions have consequences. And the actions in this case were his. If he suffers embarrassment, it is because of what he did. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519/100 "2014-06-24T22:52:31Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Wikipedia specifically bans references from forums and blogs. Now if a journalist writes about this situation, _that_ reference could be included. Not clear actually. Here’s the wikipage on citations\*: [Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources) > [@](#): > > Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves > > Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: > > ``` > 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; > 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; > 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; > 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; > 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. > > ``` Hm. #2 might raise issues. Does, “We received a letter from X”, necessarily and narrowly involve a claim about X? - A page devoted to cites. It brings a tear to this doper’s eye. _Sniff_. On edit: > [@mhendo](#): > > Yes, actions have consequences. And the actions in this case were his. If he suffers embarrassment, it is because of what he did. Oh sure. But there’s more than one agent to consider. The managers of this message board are not passive agents, nor do they present themselves as such. To say that one person’s actions have consequences doesn’t really say much about another’s. I think one can judge Ed’s behavior on moral grounds without shifting all attention to Redacted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-matter-of-eds-thread-take-down/691519.md?page=6)