Yes, I got that. I can read, after all. But of course I didn’t claim to know anything; I claimed to believe something. Why is it so difficult to take something to mean exactly what it claims to mean?
Why? Because he used to be a moderator? Because he didn’t get slapped on the wrist for the specific term, but for his general attitude?
I don’t get it.
Coldfire, apparently Badtz Maru and TheLoadedDog believe that calling someone a pro-child-prostitution liar is the same as calling them a child molester and that, therefore, Gaudere telling Manny
makes it okay to insinuate in The Pit that another poster might be a child molester.
Chalk it up to a combination of poor reading comprehension and pettiness on the part of Badtz Maru and TheLoadedDog.
I think we’ve established by now that neither term deserves a courtesy prize. And I’d like to think most posters here have enough common sense to come to the conclusion that while Gaudere didn’t name or quote Manhattan’s words literally, they were obviously not appreciated.
Sure, you can debate whether G. should have been harder on Manny. But suggesting the terms used are acceptable in the Pit? Gimme a break.
[sub]Thanks FF, for your explanation.[/sub]
I can’t recall which thread this was in, but I remember seeing this exchange. In fact, he did come back and post a link in support of this assertion. The link was to an article about global reaction to 9/11. It indicated that most countries had issued press releases/statements decrying the attack, but Iraq had said something like “America is reaping the fruits of their hegemony.” I didn’t exactly get a “congratulations to Bin Laden! You go boy!” vibe out of it, but there wasn’t much sympathy for the US either.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, but the article did mention the Taleban had strongly denounced the 9/11 attacks. I found that very amusing.
Enjoy,
Steven
Fatwater Fewl and Coldfire, you may put it down to “poor reading comprehension” or “stunted logic” if you like, but you’ve both completely missed the point here. Of course there is a difference between accusing somebody of being pro child prostitution, and of being a child molester. A small difference perhaps in terms of offensiveness, but an obvious difference nonetheless, and I’m not arguing that. Yet, for the purposes of this thread, in a strange way they are the same: using either of them on these boards would have you out the door in a flash. Unless, of course, you are manhattan.
Nope. Because he is untouchable. As a moderator or a member, he seems to be above the law, and there are lots of people here wondering why. There has never been a satisfactory explanation.
He should have been banned for the former, and the latter should have happened years ago.
Or just to explain it more simply to you guys (don’t worry, I’ll type slowly), Gaudere’s warning shot doesn’t tell us anything. Does it mean that it’s ok to use the term manhattan did as long as it’s in the Pit, as you two are saying? Or does it mean that it’s ok to use it in the Pit only if you happen to be manhattan, as I suspect is the case. Now there’s no proving it either way, and we could argue it until the cows come home, but I’m unconvinced any ol’ Joe Poster would be able to confidently accuse somebody of being pro child prostitution anywhere on the SDMB and not expect some serious shit coming down on them from the mods and admins.
For the record, I’ve got no beef with Gaudere, as some in this thread have. The warning wasn’t strong enough IMHO, but at least it was given. It’s a start.
Coldfire, I’m not arguing quite the same thing as Badtz Maru here. Ok, everyone agrees that the direct child molester accusation is not on for anybody anywhere on the SDMB. I’m saying that the “pro child prostitution” bit was deemed OK if you “take it to the Pit”. And I’m suggesting that that ruling might be only for manhattan. I drew comparisons between the two slurs to illustrate that most people couldn’t get away with either, making them the same only for the purposes of this thread, which is SDMB disciplinary policy.
Maybe for a first-time poster whose attitude and posts are nothing but trolling attempts, sure. But for a long-time poster (regardless of previous mod status)? I don’t currently recall otherwise where a poster of good standing hadn’t been warned before he/she was banned for that single infraction (bad as that infraction may be).
Can you provide a link to a case where it has happened?
No, I can’t provide a link. You are probably right in what you say. But this isn’t the first time manhattan has been a jerk, and the warnings should have been given for other stuff (please don’t ask me to find links for these now. It’s 7:30am and I’m hungover as all fuck 
Maybe later). This latest case should have had him shown the door.
This is not the first time it happens and he has been warned. About a year and a half ago, in this thread Manhattan blew a gasket and said
As would be expected, all hell broke loose and there was a serious meltdown. There was talk of showing him the door but in the end his services as a moderator weighed more. He later sort of apologized in this thread. He seems to have some serious issues with child molestation which make him go apeshit.
And he most definitely is getting a pass where others would get the boot.
Near the top of page 3 of this thread I posted:
the thread is several pages long so I might be mistaken but I can only find one further post by him in that thread and it does not address any of the points I raised with him. He just ignored my questions so I kind of took it as a concession. In any case, it is really not important as it does not affect the substance of this thread. It is only a footnote.
You might be remembering a similar thread where IIRC december or someone else made the same assertion.
Thanks for your thoughts, flowbark. I agree with some, disagree with others, but in any event appreciate the tone and general content.
To the points:
I did not blow a gasket. In fact, I thought for some time before wording the post the way I did – whether sailor’s lies (prominently, that “women are still forced into sexual slavery in Burma and other Asian and African countries. But prseident (sic) Bush is not interested in that as there are no votes to be gained by talking about that.”) rose to a level that justified my response. I decided that they did (but see below). Persons may of course disagree – Gaudere did, and accordingly I shan’t do it again.
I do not think that sailor is pro-child prostitution. I do think that in that thread he was being a pro-child prostitution liar. That’s a distinction with a huge difference. At the time, I thought I was making it in my intro, when I characterized the lies as being motivated by “blind hatred of President Bush.” On rereading and after seeing the comments in this thread, it is clear that I was in error – that I did not sufficiently make the distinction. I apologize for that. Not just to the moderators and the membership, but to sailor. Despite my extremely low opinion of him, neither he nor anyone else deserves to be called pro-child prostitution unless they actually are (which, again, I believe he is not).
I also do not believe that sailor is pro-Ba’athist. But I do believe he is a pro-Ba’athist liar.
More specifically, I think that every time he encounters the term “President Bush” his brow furrows, his neck stiffens, his temples get tight and little beads of sweat appear on his forehead. When he gets in that state, I believe that there is no lie he won’t tell, no fact he won’t invent, and no evil he won’t defend if he thinks it will make President Bush look bad.
You are mistaken. It’s lower on page three, right after I agreed with your restatement of the OP. Specifically, I said “I agree with this in its entirety. Since I suspect you’d agree that “uninvade Iraq” is not an option available to the U.S., I’m not going to refight the reasons for the war except to respond to your specific challenge (cite).”
The cite is to a CNN story which reported that "In Baghdad, Iraqi state television hailed the attacks as ‘a natural reaction to American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness.’
In a broadcast monitored by the BBC the television station said: ‘The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity.’"
I’m merely saying that that conclusion shouldn’t be drawn from Gaudere’s warning. FWIW, the “stunted logic” remark wasn’t directed at you, as I generally hold you in good regard when it comes to logic skills. It’s just that I feel you’re reading too much into Gaudere’s words here. You’re free to argue that she should have been tougher on manhattan, but I don’t feel the conclusion above is justified.
manhattan, thanks for offering a clarification.
Ok, I didn’t have a chance to say this in the other thread because it had progressed beyond that point. I’ve got a second chance and I guess I’m small enough to take it.
manhattan, please, please tell me that you don’t really believe a country’s reaction to 9/11 is some sort of justification for an invasion of that country! I know 9/11 hit you hard, like it did most New Yorkers, and that it is a subject both powerful and painful. Still, please, please tell me that the broadcast on Iraqi TV post 9/11 doesn’t make the list of “reasons for war”. They’re words. Not kindly words, but what should one expect from a country we have been actively punishing for over a decade? Punishing for their own bad behavior, but still it will create resentment. Are we so shallow that we demand even those who we have clearly made enemies of respond to our pain sympathetically or we will beat them up some more?
Enjoy,
Steven
For mine, the key word in Gaudere’s warning is “or”. If it was “and take it to the Pit”, I’d tend to agree that your take on it is pretty much spot on. Anyway, no worries Clogboy mate. We’ll have to agree to disagree. And thanks for clearing up the “stunted logic” bit. I’ll have to step back from my Homeresque “Why, you little…” frame of mind. Cheers mate.
manhattan continues to attack me personally but he provides no proof for his assertions and has not returned to the thread which originated this. he has no arguments except to attack me.
But he cannot provide evidence that what i am saying are lies. Instead of addressing what I said he insults me.
Does manhattan have cites of president Bush doing something about the plight of women forced into sexual servitude in Burma and in othe places? No he doesn’t. What I said is a lie just because he said so. he does not counter with arguments and evidence supporting them. He just insults those who disagree with him. He has not returned to that thread to post any supporting evidence for anything he said and there is plenty of evidence by several people which contradicts him.
I think it is quite clear who is the liar here.
So, the argument here is that manhattan was NOT accusing sailor of being pro-child prostitution, but of repeating lies that supported child prostitution, and THAT is what he meant when he said he was a ‘pro-child prostitution liar’.
So, if someone had repeated on the board that more black people than white people received social assistance, it would be OK to call them a ‘racist liar’, because you aren’t REALLY saying they are racist, just that they are repeating lies that serve a racist agenda.
Or if you repeat OJs accounts of what happened on June 12, 1994, you are a ‘pro-murder liar’. Or if you believe Kobe and I do not, I can call you a ‘pro-rape liar’.
It’s obvious bullshit, because in the same damn thread manhattan rephrased his accusation that sailor is pro-child prostitution when he accused him of DEFENDING child prostitution.
Let’s assume that manhattan is being up-front about what he really meant when he said that. It is OK to say someone is repeating lies that support an agenda in GD. But there is a big difference between saying someone is repeating lies about child prostitution and saying that they are actually defending child prostitution. Since manhattan said both, it seems logical that he actually does believe that sailor is pro-child prostitution - why else would he defend it? Manny is playing semantic games (being a pro-hypocrisy liar) to try to cover for his hateful and ban-worthy offenses.
I also don’t think I’m reading more into Gaudere’s ‘warning’ than what was clearly said.
Gaudere did not say that manhattan’s behavior was unacceptable anywhere. Gaudere did not say ‘Take it to the Pit AND take it down a notch’. The important word here is OR. If I had received this ‘warning’, I would take it to mean that what I was saying belonged in the Pit, not Great Debates. If someone had told me that and I DID take it to the Pit, and got in trouble for doing so, I would lay the blame on the moderator who told me to take it to the Pit.
It’s barely a warning, more of an example of ‘This post belongs in…’ moderation.
I do know I’ll be using the ‘pro-BLANK liar’ line a lot more now, it’s a great way to sound like you are making a nasty accusation without being held accountable for it.
Character will out.