Hail Czarcasm for not blindly defending another mod.
I apologize for calling Futile Gesture an idiot in an incorrect forum.
Since this is the Pit, I will state here for the record that Futile Gesture is a colossal pedant, a moron of the lowest quality, one who either does not understand his own country’s history or who lacks the articulation to form a coherent thought upon the page. He is inordinately fond of making absolutist statements that are mostly wrong and without any backup, then getting pissy over people who take offense at them. Britain was “never” at war with France. The recent anti-French attitude in this country is “purely” due to the Iraq war. Even when faced with evidence- anti-French jokes decades old- he claims that it is merely “opinion” and therefore his uninformed, unsubtansiated, prejudiced and blindered ‘opinion’ is immediately as valuable or important as anyone else’s. He is more than a fool, he is a self-important fool, and those are the most dangerous kind.
And ChefGuy is just an asshole.
Heh. That was funny. Very, very funny.
And I apologize for writing F-words.
More of a discussion of policy because I’d be slow to insult my friend Futile and anyway my other buddy John has apologized, but just as the decision in the Colony of New York v John Peter Zenger showed it is not libelous if it is true and as Futile’s statements were (if you’ll excuse me) patently, laughably, even idiotically false, would calling someone an “idiot” outside the Pit still be an insult if they have demonstrated themselves to be, if only for a moment, an idiot?
Just wanted to say “Hello” Lib. I have not been ignoring you, I just felt the cease fire was nice. But I wish you would not just ignore my posts, I appreciate your input, F-words and all. (though I do not recall you addressing f-words to me)
JC: while your roast of the …ant was funny, I think, based on my minimal experience, you could have done better. If you need help against Czarcasm I am availible. (that last part was meant as a jok. I mean humor, since Jokes are prohibited)
(Cheebus, what kind of board punishes somebody for calling an Idiot, an Idiot?)
I hope you are happy and well, Askeptic. Just so you’ll know, jokes per se are not prohibited in the Pit. It is joke *threads * that are prohibited .
My reasoning was the same as yours, but down that road lies a slippery slope- it enables the defense of, “Well, come on, I called him a colossal fucktard because he is/. Show me a fucktard more colossal than he!” And from there, flame wars are easily hand-waved away, as people are stating what is, to them, and immediate truth.
I erred in not opening up a specific Pit thread to mock and deride Futile Gesture; starting a Pit thread on someone who makes such an incredible gaffe is the correct procedure. For that, I apologize.
I await John Corrado’s correction on my understanding of the French /Scots Alliance against the English with less than baited breath. Until then he is merely blowing hot air and postures out his arrogant arse.
In the meantime, I direct those interested to the following sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance
http://www.electricscotland.com/france/auld_alliance.htm
You might then want to explain to him that, despite his mockery, Scots did fight with Joan Of Arc. An Alliance also means that when England was at war with France they were also at war with the Scots. I do not consider it “nit-picky” or pedantic to correct those who consider it a war involving a nation that didn’t exist at the time, particularly when a fair proportion of this not-yet-existing nation was actually fighting on the other side. If John Corrado knows differently then he needs to speak up. Sarcastic asides aren’t going to rewrite the history books on their own, you know.
For the record, I believe, like Shade (an accurate and fair analysis, by the way Shade), that John Corrado misunderstood what I was saying, and he accepts the above facts. But having stormed in to throw his historical knowledge about the thread, he is now too much of an self-inflated gonk to admit it. Strange, as what I wrote was not intended to be an academic study and could excusably be misunderstood. (Particularly, as I have repeatedly admitted, I start off with a careless and incorrect statement.) It was a passing opinion, just like hundreds of other in the IMHO forum. Had I know he was going to take it so to heart I would have taken far greater care in writing it, least it injure his fragile and massive ego.
If Tir Tinuviel wasn’t referring to the Hundred Years War, then I apologise for misunderstanding what he was saying. That’s what I took from his post. You might want to note I managed to correct what I perceived to be his mistake without insults or being a jerk about it. A basic social skill sadly lacking in Moderator John.
Had they been asked two years ago, most Americans opinion of France would generally be of complete indifference. I therefore stand by my opinion that any current ‘French bashing’ referred to by the OP is a result of their refusal to fall into line with the American Government’s wishes on the war with Iraq. John Corrado needs to learn there’s a big difference between anti-French jokes in the Simpsons ten years ago and orchestrated anti-French boycotts. Perhaps he watches too much TV.
But you might notice that nothing in my post contradicted anything said by John Corrado. I wasn’t even addressing him, I was answering the OP and offering my opinion. But apparently I failed to show sufficient deference to his proclamation from on high. In common with other arrogant arses he apparently thinks all discourse revolves around him. I hope all other Dopers take note. Once John Corrado muscles in on a thread you all better sit up, listen and don’t dare post any opinion that might conceviably be anything less than groveling compliance.
If you guys have a “Moderator handbook”, you should put this in there. I don’t why, but it really cracked me up and is one of the better explanations for the ban that I’ve seen.
Hmmm…have to disagree with this. I seem to remember when things were hot with Libya and France refused our bombers overflight on their way to blow some stuff up. There was quite a bit of anti-French rhetoric around and that was in ?88-89? (somewhere around there, certainly longer ago than 2 years). Quite frankly, I thought Lib had a great explanation for the state of things between the US and France. Although John’s specific reference to DeGaulle’s rise being the breaking point was more detailed, it was captured in spirit in Lib’s post.
Please increase your reading comprehension. I never claimed that France was not allied with Scotland.
You stepped into the thread and made the following statement:
“Bzzzt. Wrong.” (Nice bit of insulting arrogance, there.)
“The British have never been at war with the French. You are thinking of the English-French War (14th Century), a war during with the Scots were allied with the French.”
The only possible way I could read this statement is as follows:
Britain has never been at war with the French, period.
Your mistake in believing that Britain was at one point at war with the French is merely because the French were allied with Scotland during an English-Scottish war.
That was a statement so ludicrous, so idiotic, so out-there, that, combined with your absolute arrogance (“Bzzzt. Wrong.” “The recent animosity is purely because they didn’t roll over” “your average American has absolutely no idea how much they owe the French”) I could only assume that you were a blowhard and incompetent to the highest degree.
Yes, England was at war with the Scots when Joan of Arc was around. However, they were also at war with France. Certainly, it may not have gone by that name at the time, but to insist that it was not really “France” and that England was not really “Britain” is a matter of pendancy and nit-picking of such depth as to be astounding. Especially for a post that did not actually bother to support said picked nits, but rather to make a very outlandish independent statement- “The British were never at war with the French.”
If what you meant was, “The British were never really at war with the French during the English-French war; it was a misnomer for a war that was truly between England and Scotland”, then you should have fucking well said that. Your shorthand and lack of communications skills led you to state something that it seems a majority of responders have interpreted as “Britain never went to war with France, not during the Hundred-Years-War, not during the Seven Years’ War, not during the Napoleonic Wars.”
This board is about fighting ignorance. You write a sentence that, on any reading, exudes ignorance, expect it to be dissected and thrown back at you.
Once again, arrogance and assumption of absolute knowledge. You live in England, right? How the fuck do you know what the average American felt two years ago? Do you have any polls? Do you have any data? Do you have anything other than your smug sense of self-satisfaction that you understand the world perfectly so that it makes everyone who doesn’t think perfectly like you into an evildoer?
Damn straight. Learn it and live it, boy.
Well now, I was willing to just let the whole thing die, which is why I didn’t go back to that thread after my response to you. But this is pretty much uncalled for in a thread that has nothing to do with me.
So fuck you, fuck your mother, fuck your children, and fuck anyone who looks like you, you arrogant piece of shit. As assholes go, you’re prime cut.
Thank you. I don’t think I’ve ever summarized a misunderstanding that’s pleased even one of the parties.
However, you don’t seem to have addresses the point of Tir’s post: she’s saying that Brits (or at least the English) traditionally fued with the french.
I don’t know if ‘any’ inlcudes Brits’ as opposed to just Americans’ but if so, I really don’t think the Iraq war has much to do with it (I might be wrong, but I think I represent a fairly typical English opinion).
Wrong! Mod or not (because they are totally without fault…) and whether John Corrado started it or not… two people talking in a foreign language is the same as talking about someone (anyone) behind their back. It is two-faced and RUDE. No matter WHAT was said.
What he said (hate-speech or whatever) is NOT the point. Except here in the Pit, this is a civil board. And what they did was just fucking rude! Period. Didn’t your parents teach you anything?
Futile Gesture: "I hope all other Dopers take note. Once John Corrado muscles in on a thread you all better sit up, listen and don’t dare post any opinion that might conceviably be anything less than groveling compliance.
John Corrado: “Damn straight. Learn it and live it, boy.”
Wow! That’s a REAL class statement from a mod… :rolleyes: Makes me feel free to post an opinion…
John was awfully harsh, but Jesus, son! Grow some balls and get over it. There’s no need to come in here a throw a hissy fit because somebody disagreed with you. You are acting in the same manner that you are condemning John for when you accuse him of having an over-inflated ego and such. Yes, I realize this is the pit, but really, it shouldn’t have ended up here.
Just a quick hijack, I got some extra money and got my membership! Yay!
People talking in a foreign language is two-faced and rude no matter what? The non-English speaking world is reeling in confusion from that one. I think you’re short a few conditional modifiers on that one.
Well, I was raised by wolves. They taught me how to gut a mule deer with my teeth, but sort of glossed over the social niceties of an international internet message board with a large multi-lingual contingent.
Sorry, Miller. That was way over the top… but this IS an English-speaking board. That was my point. If you converse in another language, you can say most anything about anyone.
S’alright. It’s a valid point, just not the one that was behind the “English only” rule on the boards, which was, as I understand it, specifically instituted because the mods couldn’t police posts written in a language they don’t understand. Which, of course, includes insulting someone outside of the Pit, but is far from the only (or most important) reason behind it.