Now, I think everyone here know i am generally in favor of less Warnings, more Notes. Time after time in ATMB, I have said something along the lines of “well, yes, that was inappropriate but considering… maybe a Note would have been better”.
Here I am asking the opposite- why the fuck wasnt that behavior issued a Warning? or even a immediate suspension? “Dont Shoot”?!?:dubious::rolleyes:
Not to speak for Miller or the SDMB, but he was just carrying on in the tradition of Giraffe and Gfactor. That’s the way the Pit has been moderated the last five years or so. At least IMHO.
I realized that this summary probably was confusing because of the dual meaning of the word “poster” (“person posting on this board” and “printed advertisement posted in a public place”):
The SDMB member A’isha was contending that a Muslim columnist destroying a printed advertisement posted in a public place that the columnist found offensive was a form of “free speech” on the part of the columnist. I took umbrage at the stretching of the term “free speech” and attempted to make the point that we don’t know what A’isha does or does not support if she’s going to redefine words in this way. The murder example came into play because she was discussing the attempted murder of several people in Garland, Texas. I said that I didn’t know if she opposed murder because she might be defining “murder” in the same way she does “free speech”; i.e., idiosyncratically.
I hope that is a more clear recap of what happened, and why I think that Miller is targeting disfavored opinions – he knew exactly what the context of my remark was because he was participating in the thread, but chose to quote it out of context in order to enforce a rule about “insinuating that someone else is threatening you” which I’m guessing exists somewhere.
I appreciate the more detailed recap, which is at least coherent this time. Given your description of Miller as “targeting disfavored opinions,” however, I see no reason to believe that you’re accurately representing Aisha either. The lack of links to specific posts is telling.
Even if you’re accurately representing her, your approach to pointing out any incompetence or dishonesty in her use of the phrase “free speech” is an odious approach.
I don’t think the issue is “insinuating that Muslims are violent” is the problem. I think it’s “insinuating that [ALL] Muslims are violent.”
Note: the word [ALL] - and the brackets surrounding it - was added by me. I am not trying to say that Haberdash actually included the word in his post. To the contrary, using Haberdash’s own words from post 257,
And given a few posters who’ve racked up more than 10,000 posts doing almost nothing but link dumping, it’s kind of silly to go after this guy for it. Unless the mods intend to apply it to other, far, far worse posters. (And I would applaud it if the mods did)
Why do you not just say brainglutton Fenris, we all know your obsession with him. He has been moderated in the past on this, so I think you are being very boring here. not to defend that poster, but this allusion is silly.
toooldtocare, stop posting political comments in this thread. I’ve already had to move one of your posts to the Pit. Further posts of this kind in ATMB may receive a warning.
Haberdash posted thirty five times to that thread, in a row, without posting anything other than a comment-free link to a news story. Thirty-five times. If you have an example of someone else doing that and not being moderated for it, I’d like to see it.
Spamming the board with ads is the typical spam experience, but one could also spam the board with links. The use of “spam” in this sense derives precisely from that Monty Python skit about spam. The “spam” ends up drowning out all other content. Posting 35 links in a row (or whatever) without any explanation or commentary is not participating in a discussion.