Yes, but he is a new Mod.
On Preview I think that is what Excalibre means.
Jim
Well, I’m the mod who made the original call. So here’s what was going through my head.
I got up at 6:00 AM after going to bed around 1:00. I turned on the computer, made coffee, and read “Report this Post.” Someone complained about lissener’s post. I read his post, quickly reread the thread to that point, and made my reply. I really wasn’t trying to uphold some hard and fast rule. We try to get along without them. But I thought that he had violated the spirit of what was fair, at least in GQ. (I’m trying to turn that forum into your version of Pardise, lissener–it’s taking longer than I thought 
). And I was trying to head off debate and personal attacks in that thread.
If I could be on the boards 24/7, you’d see more of the “Manny” approach to GQ from me–I’d smite people a bit more than I do. As it is, I get to threads a bit too late, after the damage is done. But I think we’ll keep trying.
Again, I wasn’t trying to say that lissener violated a board-wide rule. Just trying to keep a modicum of civility where it’s sorely needed.
Yes. Rico and I tie for the newest. We started on the same day. fluiddruid started a few days or weeks earlier.
I swear to god, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your original post was written in such a way as to make it almost impossible to understand, but I read it three times and responded to what I thought you were saying. Now you say that’s NOT what you’re saying, but you do so with at least as much obfuscation as your original post, so I still have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Rereading your original post, all my responses to it stand, according to the little sense I can bully out of the posts I was responding to. Your post seemed to say that you were dismissing anything Bagemihl had to say on the subject of homosexuality in animals because he used drawings instead of photographs, and that your inspiration for this was a standup routing by Ricky Gervais. That’s the sense I unearthed, and that’s the sense I was responding to.
Riiiiiiight. Cuz people copy me in everything I do.
And in this case, it was certainly an insult. Not the kind that leads to murder, but as insulting as anything that lissener has ever complained about in GQ.
:rolleyes:
Very brief, as I’m really not into this endless loop style Pit stuff. Re my linguistic musings on presupposition - and how it is regularly smuggled in via definite articles and certain verbs followed by that-clauses (such as ‘regret’ and indeed, in your case, ‘suggest’), as well as in wh-questions (why do you beat your lover?) and subordinate clauses (although lissener never listens, he’s okay) - I’m disappointed I’m so unclear, but there we are. Gave it my best shot. Failed. Happens in life.
The relevance to what you wrote is that when you wrote that “I mildly snarked at roger thornhill for suggesting that a comedian’s misunderstanding of the standards of scientific notation and publication should negate most of the history of science”, I objected to the way you imply that it was *my * suggestion, my understanding, my belief that Gervais misunderstood scientific standards. It wasn’t; it was yours. But - and here is the manipulative bit (lawyers, propagandists, politicians, hecki, dopers! do it all the time) - you draw attention away from the proposition (highly contestable as it is) that Gervais misunderstands how science works by smuggling it in after the verb ‘suggesting’. To put it another way, you attempt to naturalise what is contestible by giving it the status of taken-for-granted common sense.
If, on the other hand, you had written “I mildly snarked at roger thornhill because he wrote that Ricky Gervais had misunderstood the standards of scientific notation and publication, and he also seemed to believe that this should negate most of the history of science”, I wouldn’t have batted an eye. The question you might ask yourself is why you wrote it the way you did, and whether you wish to choose to continue writig after this fashion here. It’s certainly the last time I take the time to explain and seek common ground. Life’s too short. “He who has ears” and all that. The ball’s in your court.
Re the book, I’m not dismissing the whole thing out of hand - I’m pointing out that drawings are dodgy cos you can draw what the hell you want, adducing it as evidence to support your preconceived conclusions. Frankly, I’m rather surprised that some of the most “scientific dopers” don’t see this. “Yep, Rog, bit naughty of Brucey, that.” But, as Bernal once put it, the problem is not so much that science has got into the church, as the church (evangelising, proselytising etc) has got into science. It happens.
You attacked me out of the blue in this thread, but you don’t seem to be willing to take any sort of responsibility for your own behavior, which has been far from the standards you purport to endorse. Now you respond with rolleyes. Shall I assume that you just don’t have any real response? The bottom line is that you threw out a whole bunch of baseless insults at me - in each case, you’re the one who’s manifested the behaviors you claim you don’t like. What’s wrong with you, lissener? Do you have so little self-insight that you can’t even tell how you’re acting?
It looks like I need to play more ‘SDMB Trivial Pursuit’.[sup]TM[/sup]
But either way, I wouldn’t trust a mod’s opinion on anything in a pit thread which is pitting them.
Oh, come on. Giraffe has consistently shown himself to be good people, and a good moderator as well.
OK, I’ll make the point a bit more clear for you.
There are a variety of people who post in GQ, some are snarky, some are not, some lie somewhere in between. You would love for GQ to be different, you’d love it if everyone was civil to each other all the time and only posted fact without undue opinion.
Is there any particular reason why you cannot be part of the group who are civil to each other all of the time? If you were, it would be one less snarky GQ poster. As it is, it seems that you feel compelled to align yourself with the lowest common denominator, using a “well if they can do it, so can I” approach.
The idea of leading by example is not so much that others would copy you, but it would mean that there would be more civility in GQ and the more people who are civil in GQ, the more likely it is that newbies will follow suit.
That is true. I like Giraffe also. But Giraffe’s opinion, (which was his opinion, the rules stated otherwise, and so did the other mods) in a pit thread pitting him should not be taken as gospel.
Posters find it a lot easier to say, “Yeh, I fucked up” than the mods do*. I believe there is a tendency for the mods to not admit responsibility for their mistakes, regardless of which mod it is.
*Unless of course, they are Cartooniverse.
The use of the word smite just gave me that Samuel L. Jackson moment.
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children; and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers and you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
Oddly applicable. Be a righteous man, all, and shepherd the weak through the valley of darkness. Or else.
Mods have discussed this behind the scenes, in our private hideaway, and the consensus seems to be that quoting someone is something that comes under Fair Usage. The rules are (my paraphrase) that you can change a direct quote:
- To delete material, identified either by elipses … or by <snip> or [material deleted] or similar explanation
- To add explanatory material, identified by [square] brackets; sometimes this includes short comment [sic]
- To use bold or italic font for emphasis, identified by a comment like [bold font added by Dex]
That’s it. And it doesn’t matter whether the material being quoted is in an academic journal, a news magazine, or a grocery-store scandal sheet. And, please note, when you’ve tampered with a quote for any of those reasons, it’s always ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to any reader exactly what you’ve done.
Those are the commonly accepted rules under which you can quote someone. Hence, those are the rules that should apply on our Boards.
Now, an exception is allowed when it comes to celebrities for purposes of satire. Thus, Jon Stewart is allowed to make up fake quotes for famous politicians. No one on these boards, so far as I know, has that kind of celebrity status.
The other exception is when you’re clearly NOT quoting, but paraphrasing. Use of quote tags, however, is an indication that you’re quoting, not paraphrasing.
Yes, rules have been enforced unevenly. We’ve never made a pretense otherwise. We can’t monitor every single post. Heck, when the cops give you a ticket for speeding, you cannot use the defense that they didn’t arrest your brother yesterday when he was speeding even faster. Or that you got away with it all last week. Enforcement of any laws, in a free society, is bound to be uneven. The alternative is that every post be read by a Moderator before it’s allowed on the boards. No thanks.
That’s a good explanation, Dex. That’s kinda the system I’ve unconsciously been using all along and it’s good to see it specifically spelled out. Thanks.
Mr Haven, it may be worth adding as an exemption to the no-changing-quotation rule the tidying up of spelling and grammar. If the quote retains the typos, then not only does this sometimes make it look as if you’re rubbing the original quotee’s face in it, but it tends to function as an unwanted distraction and as a temptation to our grammar police and comedians, who will hijack the thread by focusing on the errors. Just a thought, since I do it all the time. Nice bloke, aren’t I?
To me, changing it looks as if you’re rubbing their face in it. You can indicate mistakes by [sic].
You a lawyer?
What happens if you use **ieSpell 2.1.1.325 ** and accidentally correct a mistake in the quote?
Surely that not really hurting anything?
BTW: Free utility that is handy for the spilling impaired like me. Found at http://www.iespell.com/
Jim