John Corrado

[Futile_Gesture]

I refer to http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248139 and behaviour of the above Moderator.

I make that two of infringements of SDMB rules John Corrado. Perhaps he thinks they don’t apply to Mods?

• Personal insult outwith the Pit.
• Posting in a language other than English.

Quite apart from this. I’m sorry, but I did not “completely ignore” your post. I read your opinion (you know, what people have in the IMHO forum). If you intend your posts to be the final word on the matter perhaps you’d better say this and we can all take note of your arrogance. Note also how I say “The recent animosity”, your 30 year old evidence is not what I was discussing. I was giving my opinion (you know, what people have in the IMHO forum), if you have a problem about this then maybe can we have a policy statement, something along the lines of “Opinions only welcome as long as they fall precisely in line with John Corrado’s”.

My statement that the British have never been at war with the French was inconsidered and incorrect. I accept that, but the post I was replying to alluded to the Hundred Years war, which, as I explained, was not the British, but the English. As to your flippant comments about Joan of Arc etc, may I direct you to
this site where your obvious total ignorance about the Scots/French Alliance may be remedied.

Read, take on board, and shut your face until you know what you are talking about.

[leander]

As Lib said in that thread, not sure what the rules are about personal insults in IMHO.

But if he did break the rules he should apologize, retract his statement and get a little spanking. Not sure if his ego could take it though…

[Miller]

The foreign language prohibition was specifically insitituted because the mods wouldn’t be able to tell if foreign language posts were violating board rules. Clearly, that’s not an issue in this case. While a mod posting in French may be a a violation of the letter of the law, its not a violation of the intent behind those rules, so I’m personally inclined to give it a pass. I can certainly understand why other people would have a problem with it, though.

I do agree that he certainly shouldn’t have called you an idiot in IMHO, no matter how appropriate the appellation may be. And, sorry to say, your argument and subsequent defence of it were pretty stupid. But he could have been (and, indeed, should have been) much more polite in pointing that out.

[askeptic]

Oh jees, I hate to bring up usernames, but yours is pretty accurate…Mr. Corrado’s post’s in the thread you referenced seemed entirely professional and accurate.

[Shade]

IMHO John did break the rules, and should probably apologise, as a moderator should be aware of all rules. However, would it have killed you to say, in that thread: “John: I’m sorry, I posted without thinking. But was it really necessary to call me an idiot?” In fact, someone did almost exactly that…

Personally I forgive John entirely because the funniest thing I read all wek is:

So, um, were those the Scots that Henry V was fighting at Agincourt? As we all know, England lost much of its holdings in France when the Scots were roused by the Scottish hero Joan of Arc (or, as she is known in her home town of Edinburgh, Joannie a’ Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrc). Ooh! Ooh! Then it was the Scots that the Duke of Wellington beat handily at Waterloo, ten years after Admiral Nelson had dealt a crippling blow to the Scottish navy! Of course, that was only after the 7 Years’ War against the Scots- known in America as the Scottish and Indian War- during which the British managed to capture the Scottish colony of Quebec (which has always been a problem for Canada, as it has forced a ‘dual-language’ program there, as no Scotsman speaks an intelligble form of English.)

[Futile_Gesture]

Why is posting in French not an issue in this case??? John Corrado is not a Mod in IMHO, he is not the one who has to read it. And the rule is equally to prevent posters having little side conversations in front of those who may not understand the language. I was always taught that that behaviour is like whispering; rude.

Besides, a rule is a rule. Or are we allowed to ignore it if we first do a lingual check with the Mod on duty that day?

Nor was his post professional or accurate. He stamps his foot and insults anyone who might be contradicting his opinion, and while he’s at it he makes a number of cretinous comments that demonstrates he knows nothing of what I was saying. How’s that “professional”? How’s that “accurate”?

I call that being both wrong and being a jerk. Something I thought wasn’t appreciated here.

And a quip about the user name… funny… never heard that one before… :rolleyes:

[Neurotik]

To be fair, I do think you’re a bonafide idiot, Futile Gesture.

You are also 100% correct in this case. John’s namecalling was completely out of line and especially bad because of his status as a moderator. And if posting in another language is against the rules then that deserves a spanking too.

And if you think John’s post was professional and accurate, askeptic, you may want to go review them. John is clearly in the wrong here. And by a lot.

[Reeder]

No offense intended to Libertarian here, but he posted in French too. Yet you are not condeming him.

Perhaps you have an anti mod bias here?

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

Mon dieu.

Now I have seen everything. Can’t even talk out your arse in IMHO anymore. What’s this crazy world coming to?

And French? In a thread about France? Outrageous.

(Personally, if I were you, I’d be angrier with Libertarian, since in jumping to your defense with that neat French phrase, he’s the one who started it. Corrado’s stuff hardly qualifies as a language, let alone a foreign one.)

Since you have avoided the others in the thread and only focused on what John posted, you will allow me to affix my beret and translate it for you, no?

by John Corrado
Oui, c’est un expression tres mechant, mais je pense que ses actions l’ont merite.

Excusez mon francais; c’est tres mal, mais il a ete de dix ans depuis que je l’ai etudie a l’ecole, et j’ai besoin du babelfish pour les mots plus durs. Comment vous dites “rusty”?[ul]And the translation:
Oui, zee expression “bonafide eediot” ees verry strong, but Monsieur Gesture is deserving of it. Pardon my French; verry badly eet is, but eet has ten years seence I has it at the school, and I need zee babelfeesh for zee words zat are harder. How do you say “rusty?”[/ul]

Now if you’ll excuse me, my striped turtleneck and fake moustache are eetching me terribly.

[Futile_Gesture]

@Shade

IMHO John did break the rules, and should probably apologise, as a moderator should be aware of all rules. However, would it have killed you to say, in that thread: “John: I’m sorry, I posted without thinking. But was it really necessary to call me an idiot?” In fact, someone did almost exactly that…

Sorry, I don’t think I’m the one who should be apologising. Particularly when his post was far more in the wrong. I also did not wish to hijack someone else’s thread. I think that shows far more consideration than he displayed.

I’ve admitted my initial statement was obviously not correct and rushed.

But the thrust of my argument was valid. The history of the British and the French is not of hundreds of years of war. And in particular not during the Hundred Year war, which is what struck me most in the post I was replying to. Maybe I read too much into that.

But John doesn’t even correct me where I was wrong. Instead he throws a huff about how I “ignored his post” and lashes out, demonstrating in the process he doesn’t know anything about the history I was talking about and having a dig at the Scots.

Personally I forgive John entirely because the funniest thing I read all wek is:

Yeah, cos flaunting of personal ignorance is funny, isn’t it? I say Scotland was allied to France and he replies with bollocks about confusing Scotland with France. Hilarious.

And I know perfectly well what he said in French, and that Libertarian also posted in French. That’s not the issue, it was just a further example of his attitude and conduct. My objection is being called an idiot by someone who knows sod all about what he’s posting.

[Miller]

@Futile Gesture

Why is posting in French not an issue in this case??? John Corrado is not a Mod in IMHO, he is not the one who has to read it. And the rule is equally to prevent posters having little side conversations in front of those who may not understand the language. I was always taught that that behaviour is like whispering; rude.

No, but he is a mod, and is probably not going to start spewing hate speech or giving directions on how to cook crystal meth just because he’s posting in another mod’s forum. As for it being rude, well, this is the Straight Dope Message Board, not the Ms. Manners Message Board.

Besides, a rule is a rule. Or are we allowed to ignore it if we first do a lingual check with the Mod on duty that day?

I’m more of the “a rule is a general guideline” school of thought, myself, but like I said, I can see why people would feel differently.

Nor was his post professional or accurate. He stamps his foot and insults anyone who might be contradicting his opinion, and while he’s at it he makes a number of cretinous comments that demonstrates he knows nothing of what I was saying. How’s that “professional”? How’s that “accurate”?

Aside from the insult, I didn’t see anything unprofessional or inaccurate in his post. Not counting the deliberate inaccuracies included satirically, of course. On the other hand, I’m hardly an expert on Anglo-Frankish history, so I might have missed some glaring errors. What, precisely, was inaccurate about his post?

[Tamerlane]

@Futile Gesture

But the thrust of my argument was valid. The history of the British and the French is not of hundreds of years of war. And in particular not during the Hundred Year war, which is what struck me most in the post I was replying to. Maybe I read too much into that.

Not really IMHO. Yes if you are parse “Britain” and “British” to only mean the totality of the island, including England, Wales, and Scotland ( which is certainly technically correct ), the “British” weren’t fighting the French monarchy in the Hundred Years War, rather it was the English monarchy. However that is almost excessively nitpicky IMO.

At any rate the “English” and “French” ( quotes as at times, at least under the early Angevins Henry II, Richard I, and the early reign of John, the English throne exercised wider feudal control in France than the Capetians ) were at odds pretty much continually from shortly before the Norman conquest in 1066 ( Duke William’s relationship with the French king had soured even before then ) to the early 20th century. As late as the 1890’s they came close to war. And when England was “Britain” ( whether you start from the incorporation of Wales under Edward I or from the Stuart succession to the English throne ), it too has been almost continuously in conflict with France until the early 20th century. They were simply natural geopolitical rivals and alliances or even neutrality were generally fleeting.

I do agree John Corrado should apologize for the out-of-forum insult, though.

• Tamerlane

[askeptic]

futilegesture, are you trying to earn my sig, cause if so, all you have to do is ask.

[dantheman]

It’s a moot point, isn’t it? John Corrado was told to “knock off the personal insults,” and everyone was told to “knock off that funny furriner speech” by Czarcasm.

See? Problem addressed. There’s no real need for this thread. A rule was broken, the breaker was admonished, and life goes on.

[iampunha]

@El Cid Viscoso

Since you have avoided the others in the thread and only focused on what John posted, you will allow me to affix my beret and translate it for you, no?

Hmm, I get a different translation. Admittedly, I am no longer functionally fluent (i.e. everything except for traffic reports, hysterical mothers and the news ticker) in French, but I have retained a bit.

“Oui, c’est un expression tres mechant, mais je pense que ses actions l’ont merite.”

Yes, it is a very evil/bad expression, but I believe his [note: in the French, “ses” can refer to either gender, thus avoiding the occasional “their” or “his/her” cluttering up of posts that occurs when you don’t know someone’s gender and don’t want your post to reflect a guess or generalization] actions have merited it.

“Excusez mon francais; c’est tres mal, mais il a ete de dix ans depuis que je l’ai etudie a l’ecole, et j’ai besoin du babelfish pour les mots plus durs. Comment vous dites “rusty”?”

Excuse my French; it is very bad, but it’s been ten years* since I studied it in school, and I need babelfish for the more complicated** words. How do you say “rusty”?

*The actual phrase, not that I’m trying to dig at John here, is I believe “il y a [number of years] …” and there’s of course more than one way of saying this, though the phrasing differs by the phrase, of course. I believe John here was using a more literal translation of the American/English “it has been”, rather than the French “It here has” (il=it, y=here, a=was), which is more often translated “there is/are”. Obviously in this case it’s “it’s been” in the English, though I was told that the French handling of the phrase is different.

**I’m not entirely sure the word ever literally means complicated, but given the word choice executed by John in his post, I don’t think it’s an outlandish translation to make.

This post brought to you by Pickers of French Nits, real or otherwise;)

[kniz]

iampunha your translation was probably more correct, but I liked the French accent that El Cid Viscoso threw in at no additional charge.

[iampunha]

@kniz

iampunha your translation was probably more correct, but I liked the French accent that El Cid Viscoso threw in at no additional charge.

I’d throw a freshly licked snail at you, but we just ran out, and the Snailporium doesn’t open yet until 8 AM:p

[Weirddave]

As far as historical accuracy goes…

Futile Gesture it might be wise in the future to reasearch just who you are pitting, John Corrado has a long history of proving on this message board that he is a very knowlegable historian( and if you pulled off my socks and tickled my feet, I’d probobly be forced to admit that he’s likely more knowlegeable than me, and I have two damn degrees in this stuff, damn it ). I’ve learned that when he calls you on historical facts, brother you better get your research right, because he’s likely correct. The fact that Tamerlane agrees with him is the final nail in your coffin, the two of them are about as likely to be wrong as the Vogons are to demolish the Earth. I agree with John, and I have some small credentials in that area myself.

As to the insult in the wrong forum and the furrin speachifying…There you are completely right.

[Shade]

@Futile Gesture

I’ve admitted my initial statement was obviously not correct and rushed.

But the thrust of my argument was valid. The history of the British and the French is not of hundreds of years of war. And in particular not during the Hundred Year war, which is what struck me most in the post I was replying to. Maybe I read too much into that.

But John doesn’t even correct me where I was wrong. Instead he throws a huff about how I “ignored his post” and lashes out, demonstrating in the process he doesn’t know anything about the history I was talking about and having a dig at the Scots.

Yeah, cos flaunting of personal ignorance is funny, isn’t it? I say Scotland was allied to France and he replies with bollocks about confusing Scotland with France. Hilarious.

And I know perfectly well what he said in French, and that Libertarian also posted in French. That’s not the issue, it was just a further example of his attitude and conduct. My objection is being called an idiot by someone who knows sod all about what he’s posting.

Firstly, I apologise. I read your post quickly and misinterpreted it, as I believe John did.

@Tir Tinuviel

Well, us Brits are supposed to hate the French, it’s a genetic memory from our hundreds of years of being at war with them.

I think, and think John and others thought, that Tir was referring to to more recent conflicts, the most recent of which is probably at waterloo. I think Futile_Gesture mistakenly but reasonably thought Tir was referring to the “100 years war” and responded reasonably but somewhat nit-pickingly pointing out that that France was allied with Scotland and fighting England not Britain, thus:

The British have never been at war with the French. You are thinking of the English-French War (14th Century), a war during which the Scots were allied with the French.

Which unfortunately gives the false impression that you trying to say the english were fighting the Scots, NOT the French, which is what JC responded to.

Am I right so far?

I posted on that assumption, and apologise - you have a valid greivance.

Unfortunately, you say Britain has ‘never’ (or at least, has not typically) been at war with France. Do you still stand by this? Is your point still that we mean UK rather than Britain? Well, maybe but I think you could explain that better. Or is it that my conception of English/UK-French relations from Waterloo backwards is skewed, and did not represent lots of warfare?

Sorry, I don’t think I’m the one who should be apologising. Particularly when his post was far more in the wrong. I also did not wish to hijack someone else’s thread. I think that shows far more consideration than he displayed.

We now know it would probably have ended up it the pit anyway, but before I realised the full depth of miscommunication, I’d have thought a couple of posts (which appeared there anyway) might be enough to settle this without going to the pit.

[Tir_Tinuviel]

@Futile Gesture

But the thrust of my argument was valid. The history of the British and the French is not of hundreds of years of war. And in particular not during the Hundred Year war, which is what struck me most in the post I was replying to. Maybe I read too much into that.

Interesting, as I didn’t mention the “Hundred Years War”.