Sorry, I was just making conversation at that point. I wasn’t thinking about her so much as the tendency for people to receive help (even from financial institutions who would presumably think differently) because they were irresponsible, rather than in spite of being irresponsible.
Anyway, sorry about the hijack.
What? People are paying Bill Clinton money to get him out of debt? What does he have to do with anything?
Fuck… people do dodgy shit in business all the time. This is probably one of the most straight up tactics of all. Have a look at Microsoft or the major music labels if you want to get your panties in a twist, but missy Karyn is small fry compared to them. Who cares if she made $13 000 honestly out of people who wanted to give it to her? It’s not like she was creating a monopoly or anything.
I don’t get this argument. Really.
Let’s turn it around. In what way are you affected by Hail’s outrage, other than seeing it in this thread?
Is he your brother? Dad? Hubby?(well, obviously not:D)
So why do you care if he’s pissed?
Now why do I rant about her, other than the fact that she exemplifies a good portion of what is wrong with our society?
Because it’s fun. Which may exemplify another portion of what is wrong with our society. I haven’t decided yet.
Tut, tut, dantheman. He’s not being “jerkish” in the Universally Accepted SDMB meaning of the word, and he hasn’t done anything in this thread to draw a moderator’s unfavorable attention (mild derision, perhaps).
As someone who rarely posts but who reads the forums every day, and as someone who lurked for a good long while before she registered but who still considers herself a member of the “community”, I have to wonder why you are bringing this up. Talk like that frightens the newbies, you know, and it gives an erroneous impression about just what is valued here on the SDMB.
And spooge, you sir, make an excellent point.
Tut, tut yourself. First of all, there is no “universally accepted” meaning of the word, so please don’t be so presumptuous to think you speak for everyone. I said it borders on jerkish behavior, and it does - no matter what loose definition you’re using. The poster in question either had not read the previous posts in the thread or completly misunderstood what alice was saying. Therefore this poster is either lazy or ignorant.
I’m sorry, but when someone pops up out of nowhere and just decides to scream about something, they better be dead on with their observations. This person clearly was not, IMO.
Hm. Someone posts an obnoxious comment, they get called on it, and you’re pissed at the one who calls them on it?
Sorry, if someone wants to act all mean-spirited in this forum, that’s certainly their privilege to do so, as it is my privilege (and anyone else’s) to call them on it when they do so.
As for “frightening” the newbies, I don’t buy that for a minute. If I had jumped his case for making a legitmate point, that would be one thing. Did you forget his first words in his (or her) post?
Anyone who’s posting like that after posting zero, zilch, nada in a particular thread is simply asking for trouble. It’s far more likely that a newbie would be more reluctant to post such crap while still a newbie. If you post like that from the get-go, you’re going to get slammed a little; if you’ve made some good points or nice comments first, then you might get some slack. That’s how message boards are. But his comments were still obnoxious.
**I do not presume. The word does have connotations specific to this board. From the registration agreement: “We have one basic rule: Don’t be a jerk.” That is word the administration has chosen to describe a wide range of behavior so bad as to deserve severe reprimand or banning. This is the usage I am referring to. In my experience, when long-time posters apply the word “jerk” to other posters, they are predicting or wishing for an official smack-down of that poster. So when you tell Hail Ants that his behavior “bordered on” jerkish, followed up by the comment, “Do you need a moderator to tell you not to do something before you stop doing it?”, it seemed to me that you were implying he was cruising for an official warning or worse, which of course he does not deserve, at least not for his actions here. If this was not what you meant I apologize.
Just 'cus I think Dryga was rude does not mean I can’t take issue with anything anyone who speaks against him has to say. I just don’t understand why you got all excited about his “posting as much here as the rest of us” comments. He was speaking in a general sense, for fuck’s sake, not bragging about his post count.
**
Hello, it is possible to follow a thread and form opinions on it without participating. Should we all check in at the beginning if we intend to comment later? And if he has been here over a year, he is decidedly not a newbie, regardless of his post count. It is entirely possible to get a good understanding of this board’s culture without chiming in on every little thing. You can be pissed at his delivery (and you are right to be so), but don’t get snobby because he presumed to speak when his post count’s less than…well, whatever you think it should be be.
“So why do you care if he’s pissed?”
I certainly don’t care. Karyn sure as hell doesn’t. Or she hasn’t indicated that she does.
You hit on it - it describes a wide range of behavior. This is good, since it means the moderators are free to interpret posts as they will, instead of being tied down to a specific act. Therefore the conntations are not specific at all.
That’s your opinion, and that’s what you inferred. The word is free for all to use, and if you are inferring one use of it, that’s not my problem. I mean that behavior that appears to do nothing but irritate other people, offering nothing in terms of actual substance, in fact, over-the-top behavior that appears to be crafted so as to enflame other people and piss them off, is absolutely jerkish behavior. And since he complained about people complaining about his overuse of red, he was IMO doing just that. Again IMO, he was cruising for an official warning if he kept up the attitude. I’m not speaking for anyone but myself, but we’ve all seen that jerkish behavior can and does earn a coment from a moderator.
His post count doesn’t have a lot to do with it. Look at the substance of the post - why are you defending it? We agree it was a rude comment, but you take issue with someone taking issue with it? Huh? Wha?
Anyway, I didn’t get excited, I don’t think. So there.
IMO, you bet your ass you should. If you’re going to comment in a thread, you really ought to have read the thread to begin with (unless it’s a poll question, or a MPSIMS-type thread in which people are not debating points or facts). In a thread that’s gone on a few pages, this can be tough, but before one opens one’s mouth to scream about someone else, they better know what the hell they’re ranting about. Is this really so much to ask?
I disagree with that, but it’s a minor point. Just because you’ve been here a year doesn’t mean you know anything about this messag board - you can register and then forget about it forever.
I’m not trying to be snobby about this. If he had a low post count and raised any kind of valid point, I wouldn’t have any problem with the post. He had no point! The post count only exacerbates the issue - if someone with 13,000 posts came in here and screamed “you’re a fucking moron” in his FIRST post to a conversation, people would be all over that person as well. The fact that he has a low count means I have less to go on regarding his attitude and relative productivity toward the board as a whole.
She said she made more than 100 000 and had a 50% cut with her new job. So she still made 50 000 /year. She had a 20 000 $ debt.
I don’t understand how it could have taken her 40 years to pay back a 20 000 debt with a 50 000 income…That makes no sense (except if she thought one can’t possibly survive and spend less than say, 49 000 $/year).
[mindless semantic quibble]So, your understanding and my understanding of the word used in this context is the same, not specific to one behavior in particular, but specifically referring to behavior (in my words) so bad as to deserve severe reprimand or banning.[/mindless semantic quibble] Sorry, had to get that out.
(Bolding mine). So you did mean what I thought you meant. Fine. I disagree with your assesment. His opinion differed from yours, he was passionate, maybe out of proportion to the subject, but who decides that? He used big red letters, so what? You thinks this deserves a warning? Breach of decorum in the Pit is a bannable offense? His hostility was directed at Karyn, he didn’t personally attack any poster in this thread. You think this:
is jerkish? What. Ever. What is the big deal, indeed?
Show me where I defended his words. I am talking about you. Again I say: take all the issue you want, honey, but don’t deride him because his post count is low compared to his registration date. You can have an astronomically high post count and still be regarded as a moron by almost everyone. I know you know what I mean.
I agree 100%. That is not what I meant. How do you know he hasn’t read the thread just because he hasn’t posted in it before? If there a cut off point after which no one new can enter a thread, or what?
“I don’t understand how it could have taken her 40 years to pay back a 20 000 debt with a 50 000 income…That makes no sense (except if she thought one can’t possibly survive and spend less than say, 49 000 $/year).”
Well, it was according to her own calculations, so my only guess was that she would probably would have paid only a small amount into the debt. Even if the rent in Brooklyn was cheaper, it would still be expensive compared to where I live. Then, you have utilities and other necessities. So, she probably would have only paid maybe a hundred dollars per month or something. shrugs
Who decides that? We all do, to each other and to ourselves. Now, if you asked, who decides that who “counts”… well I think you know. He used red letters, so what? Well, I find them jarring - sorry you don’t. I’m not the only one (read elsewhere in the thread). I find them pretty obnoxious, and the last one was done not to show a point but to BE obnoxious. Do I think it deserves a warning? Of course not. If he continued to act like an ass, it might deserve a warning down the road.
It’s not a big deal - do you notice several other posts went by before you even commented on it? Why do you keep arguing about it? It was an obnoxious thing the first time, the second time, and the third time it was done. You say you’re not defending the words - then what are you defending? Why are you so hellbent in taking up the case of people who - in this thread, anyway - probably don’t deserve it? You don’t see them doing it on their own.
For the last time, I am not deriding him BECAUSE of his post count. **Please[/b read what I am typing. I said what I said - in one post, unlike the countless posts we ourselves have spent on this, because of what he said. The fact that he hasn’t posted much might - MIGHT - mean that he does not know all the rules and social mores involved with posting here. I don’t know why you keep harping on this - does it really bother you that much?
I don’t know. I am guessing. The only post he has made in this entire thread attacked alice_in_wonderland for no apparent reason. If you even look at that one post, you might come to the conclusion that he skimmed the thread and just posted to be an ass. Pit threads do that on occasion; they’ll bring out the random psychopath who has nothing to contribute to a thread other than screaming his fool head off.
Here’s his one post in this thread. You and I have spent more time going back and forth on this than he spent thinking about his post before he hit Submit:
a) that is NOT the entire purpose of this place, b) he obviously has NOT “spent as much time posting here as the rest of us” since his post count is so much lower. Reading, maybe. Posting, no. This would make him a liar.
You see? He’s the one who brought the post count issue up in the first place, albeit abstractly. So please, don’t try to take a high road here and accuse me of discriminating against low-post-count people when a) I absolutely did no such thing and b) this dip brought it up himself.
By the way, I’m glad you got that out, but you conveniently missed the fact that you contradicted yourself in the first place, when you said:
It’s impossible for a word to have specific connotations to a place and then be used to describe a wide range of behavior.
Also, I am not your honey. Please disavow yourself of that idea.
In addition,
please explain this statement.
dantheman - I’m not saying Hail Ants wasn’t being annoying. Many people other than yourself seem to think so. But you implying that he was so out of line as to warrant a moderator’s scolding or worse was over the top in my opinion. We have seen such displays of assholory here that he isn’t even a blip on the radar. I still think your telling him otherwise was unjustified, and I guess that’s all I have to say. We’re not gonna change each other’s minds on this.
Eh? Once, more (not that it’s really important): the word is used on this board (in my understanding) to describe a wide range of behavior that can/will/should lead to severe spankings by those in charge. This word in particular. So if a Doper says, “you’re being an asshat!” to another Doper, they mean, “you’re being an asshat!” If a Doper says, “you’re being a jerk!” to another Doper, they could mean, “you’re being an asshat!” or they could mean, “you’re being a naughty boy and you’re about to get axed / I sure do wish you would get axed!” In the not-SDMB areas of the world, the word “jerk” does not have this association of doom around it. Therefore, it has an implied meaning that is specific to this board. The fact that there is more than one way to go about being a “jerk” has nothing to do with that.
a) That is one purpose of this place, no, not the only one. But many, many of the rants here are about subjects that do not affect the ranter. You don’t have to be a brand shiny newbie to make that mistake, assuming it’s not hyperbole, b) he didn’t say he “spent as much time posting here as the rest of us”, he said alice did. So even if he was referring to himself specifically, (which he was not), that statement is correct. alice has spent as much time posting as he has, in fact, more. What I don’t understand is why you jumped on that statement as if he was somehow misrepresenting himself, as if post count is of some tantamount importance. He barely touched the issue, you lobbed it back like, “you only have 100 posts, anyway! Nyah!” And I had to say, why?
Not-my-honey, the quantity vs. quality issue has been discussed here many, many times. I would expect that someone of your longevity would be aware of it.
Well, I guess not. But let me clear about it, if I wasn’t before. I am not saying his current behavior warrants any such thing. I am saying that future behavior might if he continued in the same vein. Also, the reason I brought up the bit about moderators is that he had ignored all requests by other people to quit it with the red font. This is annoying; not a terrible, terrible thing by any means, but annoying, which is why some people said something about it. After they - including me - did so, he went and did it again, in an even bigger font. This would imply to me that he was ignoring what we regular folk were saying and would only cease if someone with authority asked him to.
I don’t think so. That word has no specific meaning to this board. I could say you’re being a jerk, and that means nothing in terms of punitive action toward you. Were I a moderator, it might, but even that’s not certain. The word itself has no specific connotations to this board at all. It simply means jerkish behavior. This is the same jerkish behavior in other areas of the Internet and in off-line life. Now, there are other rules for this board that are much more unique to this board, such as “no links to porn in posts” and “no illegal activities”, but the “jerk” rule simply takes the universal meaning of “jerk” and applies it here as it is needed.
Many? I don’t know about that. People don’t begin rants in here when the rant subject doesn’t affect them. I’d have to say most begin rants because they do affect them, not the other way around.
Since he’s apparently not coming in here to explain himself, we’ll have to make our own interpretations. The statement isn’t “you’ve spent MORE time than the rest of us,” it was “you’ve spent AS MUCH” time as the rest of us." This is clearly not true in his case, and sorry, he’s not permitted to speak for other people. So, in this case, he was indeed misrepresenting himself - if I am interpreting him correctly.
And again, I say I didn’t. And I continue to wonder why you keep harping on it, as it’s plainly not an issue (least of all not to him, since he hasn’t even been back here). I did not say that BECAUSE he had a low post count, any of his points are moot. I am saying that he probably should not insult someone unless he knows of what he speaks. That one post - again, the only one he’s made in this thread - indicated that he clearly was talking out of his ass. His post count might imply that he hasn’t been around long enough to know the ropes.
That’s a bit of a cop out, but I’ll just go with what I think you meant, and leave it at that.