I believe that this is an example of one type of post that would be prohibited according to the suggestions of Polerius in post #244. Is there a general consensus among all the parties following this thread that the rule of Polerius be implemented? (I’m making no claim that the staff would corporately agree to such an additional rule; I am asking whether there is a general consensus among the many hostiles on this board that this rule would be a good one, either generally or in Great Debates, specifically.)
On the basis of the quoted part of your post. Duh!
Thanks, but at the risk of stating the obvious I hardly need your approval to do so. Yet I won’t. Why? Newsflash: I’m not the one whining about their alledged sluggishness. Four or five threads worth of whinning if you’re keeping score.
Sure, read it along with me:
[DNFTT Acronym
Definition - DNFTT: Do Not Feed the Trolls](DNFTT - What does DNFTT stand for? The Free Dictionary)
Now, apply some lube to your own sphincter, and try to spin that sentence in a way that does not refer directly to rjung.
Hint: go heavy on the lube. You’re going to need it.
OK, so reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.
Let’s try reading that quote again. This time, we bold the part that you can’t seem to see.
I bet you never thought the tragedies in the news would strike so close to home.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll do it for him: the T at the end of Shodan’s acronym stands for “Twit”. See the “wit” at the end?
I believe you should open a separate thread for a poll/debate restricted to said proposal. The noise to signal ratio in this one is way too high.
For the record – I like the board just fine as is and believe additional rules would only increase the bickering over their implementation.
Quite a bit of that going on as it is.
Aw, well I guess it was better that way anyhow.
Actually, according to my suggestion, it wouldn’t be prohibited since it was made in the Pit 
However, you do see that such a statement, if made in GD, serves no purpose whatsoever and only helps bring down the quality of the debate.
Know what? I’m asking for a ruling on this one. I was willing to let it go if you’d simply apologized. But I don’t much care for pathetic weasels.
We shall see who needs glasses.
Mods? May I please have a ruling on this one?
IANAMod, but it’s clear that he wrote DNFTTwit and not DNFTT
Public Service Announcement:
IOKIARDI = It’s O.K. if a Republican Does It.
And I contend that “DNFTTwit” is nothing but a lame attempt to sideskirt the rules.
Yes, by all means let’s have a ruling, and if I am judged to have done wrong I will apologize.
Regards,
Shodan
And I won’t be niggardly in my apologies if I lose.
Regards,
Shodan
I would support it as a GD rule, not as an overall SDMB rule.
I have to be off line for a bit, but I will check back later regarding the “No calling other posters names that begin with T because it might confuse RedFury” ruling. 
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, I have to say that I too took this comment as a velied accusation of trolling, about on a par with talk of goats and bridges – not blatantly violating the rule, but too damned close to the line.
I’m no mod, certainly, but I do try not to be one of the Offenderati about stuff like this, so take my comment for whatever worth you find in it.
I rule 100% in favor of Shodan. Saying “do not feed the twit” is not an accusation of trolling, any more than saying IANABanana is an accusation of being a lawyer.
Incidentally, that second “accusation” should be a “denial”.
Fair enough. But I still disagree. In you example, you’ve changed the last letter of the acronym to fit your meaning.
My contention remains that using the DNFTT acronyn as is, and then adding “wit” at the end, is at the very least disingenous.
To wit:
DNFTT = well known acronym.
DNFTTwit= Made-up bullshit to disguise intent.
In any event, Shodan will be glad to hear that I am on my way to the optician. As per Moderator’s ruling, I was wrong and I offer him my apologies – under protest.
dude, you’re a moderator now. You can edit out those fuck ups to make yourself look smart…