[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
Not snooty at all.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t referring to you at all, DFTH. Although, who knows, maybe after 20,000 posts, you too will jump on newbs to excess. We’ve all got our flaws.
[QUOTE=rayh]
I haven’t read the Constitution, can I be pitted too?
[/QUOTE]
Ooh ooh, look at me, Mr. Big Man. Mr. “I don’t need no distinctly codified Constitution but rather rely principally on Common Law.” Aren’t I impressive.
[QUOTE=flight]
Ooh ooh, look at me, Mr. Big Man. Mr. “I don’t need no distinctly codified Constitution but rather rely principally on Common Law.” Aren’t I impressive.
[/QUOTE]
Wait a minute. That’s Mr. IDNNDCCBRRPOCL. How’d he get rayh out of that? Nickname?
[QUOTE=TVeblen]
And you’re absolutely right. The post count thing/registration date thing is hopelessly stupid.
Veb
[/QUOTE]
Can’t fully agree.
Sure, anyone who uses this as his main criterion for evaluating a post is an idiot. But, for me, post count and registration date isn’t completely irrelevant.
Let’s say I’m looking at a GQ thread that involves a topic about which I know nothing. There are 5 replies, all of which make factual assertions relating to the topic. Call them Posters A-E. None of the assertions are inherently implausible.
I’m familiar with Poster A and Poster B. Poster A is Bricker. Poster B is someone like former member handy. In evaluating their posts, postcount and join date information has no real relevance, beyond the obvious point that I wouldn’t know anything about A or B if their join dates were yesterday and had postcounts of 5. So reputation is my main way of evaluating a post.
Posters C, D and E, I really don’t know. C and D’s names are somewhat familiar, but I have no real impression or memory about them. I don’t know E, as he is someone who joined last week, and has 3 posts. C joined 3 years ago, and has
800 posts. D joined 3 months ago, and has 1000 posts. I know nothing else about C, D or E.
In rough order, I’m going to pretty much accept what A says, and ignore what B says. I wouldn’t bet my life on those conclusions, so I would check out their claims if it was an important issue to me but, that aside, I believe A and disbelieve B.
That’s the easy part. I have a high level of confidence in my evaluation so far. What about C, D and E? No clue about E. He could be brilliant and knowledgeable, or complete idiot. No way of telling. That’s not to say I can discount him. I just don’t know.
But I can assess C and D to a degree. It’s limited, I admit. Like I said, neither has made much of an impression on me, and I read GQ regularly, and other forums reasonably often. If either C or D were flaming idiots, or noticeably brilliant, I’d probably remember them. So there’s that. I’m therefore going to give what they say more credibility than B, but not as much as A. In addition, I’d bet on C over D. D posts too much. No one has 1000 worthwhile posts in three months.
So I’d rank credibility something like A C E D B. NOte that the newbie falls right in the middle (although the near-newbie gets the least credibility, it’s not due to a lack of posts.)
Excalibre, you do have a point about the sense of clannish entitlement some people seem to have here.
Look at how many people whined about “I want CHARTER MEMBER under my name or I will simply die.” Awww…
I’m a charter member from 1999. So fucking what. I don’t care if it’s not under my name.
Just because some guest yanked some chains and got rightfully smacked for it doesn’t make them a pariah. Many “guests” have probably been posting on the net long before a lot of you Dopers were born.
It’s still just a fucking message board. Some of you need to go outside and relax.
[QUOTE=Klaatu]
It’s still just a fucking message board. Some of you need to go outside and relax.
[/QUOTE]
Amen.
[QUOTE=Random]
Can’t fully agree…
Sure, anyone who uses this as his main criterion for evaluating a post is an idiot. But, for me, post count and registration date isn’t completely irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
Granted, Random. The whole thing of being known carries weight but much depends on who’s doing the reading and the familiarity with poster history.
People do establish distinct voices and outlooks, and that does count for…something. I think we agree that posters can mature, have uncharacteristic bad moments, etc. Some (quite appropriately) tailor their posting style by forum. They can debate elegantly in some fora but gleefully let rip in the Pit. A lot depends on where and how ya come across 'em. More than a few have suprised me on rambles into fora I don’t frequent often. Posters just post, and those facets don’t necessarily reflect the whole person behind the words.
I think stray trolls cause paranoia way out of proportion to their actual numbers or signifance. The few that are actively malicious cause a boatload of undeserved suspicion toward the majority of new posters just feeling their way into the place. Some folks just graze their fenders a few times before hitting the straight-away.
Not disagreeing with you on basics, Random. I think your points are dead on; I’m just a shade away (I think) in the landscape.
Veb
[QUOTE=rayh]
I haven’t read the Constitution, can I be pitted too?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t it a wee bit difficult to read your constitution?
[QUOTE=Nic2004]
Wait a minute. That’s Mr. IDNNDCCBRRPOCL. How’d he get rayh out of that? Nickname?
[/QUOTE]
Re-Assessing Your History.
We have a constitution? :eek:
I take your point, Random. However there is a difference between GQ and the Pit. Not saying that post history is irrelevant only that opinions can’t be Googled.
Sorry, Squink.
Thanks, Veb
He’s still at it, with a bunch of new GQ questions today.
One asks for a definition of “continental shelf”. He also wants to know what lava is.
Only slightly less inane is “Can women be jockeys?”. I was glad to see WhyNot’s reply to that one. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7412988#post7412988
Is there anyone who has ever posted so many idiotic questions in so short a time?
Does this rule:
still apply?
Cafe Society too.
SHUT UP, Jinx!
[QUOTE=Random]
Is there anyone who has ever posted so many idiotic questions in so short a time?
[/QUOTE]
You are forgeting Mr. Clark, I presume.
[QUOTE=Random]
Only slightly less inane is “Can women be jockeys?”. I was glad to see WhyNot’s reply to that one. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7412988#post7412988
[/QUOTE]
Not too snarky, was I? Where’s the “exasperated” smilie?
[QUOTE=Don’t fight the hypothetical]
Sorry, Squink.
[/QUOTE]
No problem. I’ve been misunderstood before, and have always survived. 
Welcome to the Dope.
I should go fishing more often. Who knew such interesting things could happen while away for a weekend!
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
You’re an idiot who deserves the warning he got.
[/QUOTE]
My momma calls me lots of things. Idiot isn’t one of them. Yeah, maybe I should’ve known better, but I bet I’m not the only one who misses reading manhattan smackdowns.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
The question asked by jinx in the linked thread wasn’t just “what does the constitution say” as you suggest, but “if it says that DC is under the control of congress in the constitution, why does it have a mayor”? His comment about not having read the constitution through was just an aside.
[/quote]
Well, no, not exactly. He says “I heard it mentioned” and “I took my teachers word”, then takes the time to post here instead of looking it up for himself. As I stated, “I don’t get it” is completely different from “what does it say?”
[QUOTE=silenus]
$5 says tiel0301 doesn’t make it through the weekend.
[/QUOTE]
Do you want to PayPal that or just send it snail mail?
[QUOTE=glee]
Well the OP makes a contribution and is polite.
Unlike some posters.
[/QUOTE]
I really wasn’t aware that politeness was a requirement. Oh, sure, maybe over in HugsandKissISMS[sup]1[/sup], but the rest of the board? Does anyone even bother reading the columns anymore?
[QUOTE=Squink]
You know, some folks have been here for years, and still don’t get the posting conventions. How about cutting the newb some slack?
Jinx can be annoying.
tiel0301 expressed his annoyance in the wrong place, and got spanked for it.
BFD, it doesn’t make him the goddamned antichrist.
[/QUOTE]
Yup. Mild spank. Deserved lumps. Took them without bitching. For some reason a lot of people around here are inordinately upset. It is interesting.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Huh? I thought the board was becoming increasing hostile and cliquish, with even long-time members being turned off by administrator antics and whatnot. Or was that just last month?
[/quote]
No, it’s essentially the same board it has been for years, and the dynamic is much the same as any other board. A little more political than it used to be. This one is somewhat smarter than some of the places I read but the Hugs’n’Kisses brigade seems to want to take over the part of the internet the right wing fascists have not yet breached, and this board seems to be their latest beach head.
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
PS: tiel, welcome to the boards.
[/QUOTE]
Merci. 
[QUOTE=Daithi Lacha]
That’s absolutely true – but then he opened up a pit thread about the self-same mistake, whereas a far more gracious action might have been to let that sleeping dog lie, and to move on. Instead, he iterated his original point and elaborated on it. That sounds like fair game to me.
[/QUOTE]
Well, what actually happened is a mod told me I might get a better reception over here than over there. Do you have a problem with that mod’s advice?
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Oh, please. This isn’t a pile-on. It’s a puppy pile. A self-professed long time lurker got his widdle puppy nose thwacked by a mod, came in here to try to piddle his wee here, and we let him know his nose-thwacking was appropriate and condoned by many of us.
[/quote]
No kidding. This is, if anything, rather interesting from, say, a sociological viewpoint. “OH MY GOD! SOMEONE NOT FROM HERE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT ONE OF US! WELL, OK, WE DON’T LIKE HIM EITHER, BUTBUTBUT OHMYGODOHMYGOD!” It’s kind of funny.
Also…is that what you call a “thwack”? I did not see anything particularly harsh or hard or threatening. “Knock that off! Go to the Pit!” My aforementioned-momma has given me looks that affected me more than that “thwack”.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Who’s trying to chase him away? Two of us suggested he might want to lurk more and get to know the board’s culture before jumping in. No one’s told him to go away.
[/quote]
Well see now, that is what I do not quite understand. The board’s culture requires chastising of dumb shits, right? From what I’ve read over the years it’s had a long, LONG history of chastising dumb shits. So I did. In the wrong place, granted, and my apologies, but it does not seem to me that I said anything any worse or any better than anything anyone else has ever typed here.
[QUOTE=Daithi Lacha]
Anyway, according to the OP, he’s got “years of lurking” under his belt, so it seems like his flauting of the rules was pretty flagrant. Either the lurking is a lie, in which case he actually is a newbie and might be entitled to a little slack-cutting, or it’s true, in which case this turned-about pitting is justifiable.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, years. Not daily, but I do pop in now and again. And again - while I do not think my outburst was insanely flagrant, I definitely do not think my Pit thread was inappropriate. Especially when a mod said it might be better served here.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Since he is then a lying newbie, I think he’s entitled to no slack-cutting at all.
[/QUOTE]
Where, exactly, did I lie?
[QUOTE=silenus]
If we want to take Jinx to task, that is out prerogitive. It is not the prerogitive of an outsider any more than it is of the man on the street to entor your house and swear at you because of the color of your carpet or the names of your children.
[/QUOTE]
I LOVE this reaction! “Jinx is an ass but he’s OUR ass! Go away! You! Outsider! Shoo! You can’t talk about him like this, only we can!” They write entire psycho-social TOMES about people like you, did you know that?
Since this board has gone pay I can’t search anymore so, silenus, do tell: How many times have you taken Jinx to task?
[QUOTE=silenus]
Tiel was judged on his post. He was judged and determined to be a dick.
[/quote]
Oh, horseshit. You, personally, are judging my post on its placement, not its content; and on my post count.
[QUOTE=TVeblen]
tie10301 made two missteps, neither of 'em fatal to long life and happiness on the board as long as he/she learns from ‘em. 1.) Unprovoked aggression, i.e. flaming, in a forum that doesn’t permit those kind of exchanges. 2.) He/she, as have many others, underestimated the perils of dragging another poster into the Pit for a whuppin’.
[/QUOTE]
1.) Well, yeah, that was kind of dumb.
2.) I do not see any inherent perils on a message board. No one here can fire me, fondle me, or fuck me so I do not feel particularly imperiled. If I am supposed to be frightened or something - well, bringing up momma three times in one post is repetitive.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Cafe Society too.
SHUT UP, Jinx!
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should start your own thread with your own original thoughts instead of riding my coattails. In case you haven’t noticed, this one is running about 2:1 against.
. . .
Apologies for the length but this was a bit to catch up on after a weekend away.
[sup]1[/sup]My own personal name for the bunny/kittyland youse guys call MPSIMS.
[QUOTE=rayh]
We have a constitution? :eek:
[/QUOTE]
Assuming your location is correct and is also indicative of your nationality, then, yes, you do have a constitution. It’s just not a written constitution.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Assuming your location is correct and is also indicative of your nationality, then, yes, you do have a constitution. It’s just not a written constitution.
[/QUOTE]
Eh?
rayh’s location is given as North Wales. Last I checked, Wales is part of the United Kingdom. The UK has a constitution, just not a completely written one.
[QUOTE=Monty]
rayh’s location is given as North Wales. Last I checked, Wales is part of the United Kingdom. The UK has a constitution, just not a completely written one.
[/QUOTE]
Well if its not written down, how do they know what it says?