thanks to LHOD for coming up with the source of rjung’s askingforsmackdown hijack of Shodan’s Cafe thread.
as for rjungs’ specific reply to me (on first page) wherin he points out that the source of the quote wasn’t named, nor did he specifically name Bush, so what? One doesn’t have to invoke the name to make the message clear. “current administration” works, for example. and, more specifically, way to ignore the point.
If even people who agree with the fundemental message are saying “that’s really annoying and pointless” and, as I noted (which you apparently ignored) your tactic hurts our cause 'cause it gives the other side the opportunity to dismiss all of us 'cause of your patterned responses, a mature person would possibly be inspired to say, “maybe it is me”.
There’s about 2 or 3 folks that I personally would think of as folks prone to unnecessary hijacking to Bush bash. The conservatives lost one of their main ‘unnecessary politico hijackers’ recently. so the fact that we have so many tends to make us look even worse.
Please stop. all of you. It really is as annoying as Ann Limbaugh. (now there’s an image to creep y’all out)
I don’t think he’s an unprincipled asshole. I suspect that you’ll find a number of people think he’s quite the principled non-asshole, if you want to run this as a popularity contest.
The fact that he’s willing to call out people on his own “side” of the issues (in quotes because that’s a simplistic way of viewing things) is not a sign that he’s playing to the center: it’s a sign that he’s got principles.
What you see as not playing to the center looks to me like jingoism, like “Our party, right or wrong.” And that is what, in my opinion, reflects a lack of principles.
I don’t happen to share the outrage over Shodan’s example. And, apparently, neither did Shodan at the time. For as the OP of that thread he made no comment on the alledged hijack of same…and neither did anyone else. BTW, I say “alledged” for it was nowhere apparent in said OP that posters were constrainedto fictional literary works – in fact, rjung, asks as much and no one, including the OP, responds otherwise
Lastly, I’ll also note that at least one other poster responded to rjung’s in the very spirit proposed by the OP, thus I fail to this as any kind of blatant example of a Bush hijack.
As for the links you’ve provided, since they have nothing to do with rjung, question is, why is he being singled-out in your OP? So far all you’ve shown he’s done is bring Bush into a discussion of the likelihood of nuclear war, hardly a hijack for any number of reasons already listed, and one additional example, that I for one, find debatable.
So, where’s the beef? Want to get rid of Bush’s references altogether if they don’t fit your criteria of “proper” usage?
How’s about I say “fuck Dear Misleader, that bumbling, egotistical fratboy motherfucker” right now? How’s that fit into your outrage meter? Worthy of another pit thread? Methinks you’re going to be quite busy for quite sometime if you do. Or else you can let the mods do what they are supposed to do.
However, recent evidence seems to contradict you. If I can manage to be on you-know-who’s bad side while simultaneously being on you-also-know-who’s bad side, I must be doing a pretty good job of pissing folks off. :dubious:
Honestly, I don’t have a problem with it. If someone reads mostly non-fiction, quoting from non-fiction means they can participate. And if no one else makes a big deal about it, it doesn’t hijack anything.
Ooh, that reminds me!
Other new rule: Stop spelling anything Microsoft-related with a $ in place of an s. They are big and evil and have money. We know. I quit doing that when I turned fifteen and stopped posting on Slashdot, because it’s stupid.
Yeah, it takes two to hijack–but it only takes one person to start the hijack.
And if it were a line from The Secret Life of Bees or A History of the Crimean War or How to make Sweaters out of your Dog’s Fur, then I wouldn’t have a problem with it: it’d fit.
But that’s not what it was. It was a famously partisan poster coming into a nonpartisan thread started by another famously partisan poster and making a partisan comment.
I’ve got a couple of cats, and they’re not always real fond of each other. They scuffle a lot. But they’re not always scuffling; sometimes they’ll just be hanging out in the room with us. And then one of the cats gets an evil look in her eye, and she’ll leap over and bite the other cat hard on the ass, and boom, it’s back to scuffling.
I know that’s their nature, but goddammit, it’d be nice if they would put aside their squabbling every now and then and just chill in the same room together.
I’m suprised no one brought up starting a thread with the purpose of annoying another poster, and then hiding behing a smiley so he’s not “technically” breaking a rule. That topic is old news, rjung, as evidenced by the lack of interest in people posting to the thread. The timing of that thread starting, and this thread, is too coincidental.
Especially since he links to this thread. I think we can agree that it wasn’t a coincidence.
Which just shows that rjung either (1) can’t tell the difference between Priceguy’s exhortation about not hijacking perfectly good threads and starting an entirely new thread (acceptable, even if rjung’s threads are a little repetitive) or (2) is one of those bitter little posters who can’t tell the difference between expressing irritation at a behavior and an attack on him as a person, and just decided to camouflage his psychic angst with a smiley.
I am not a fan of the smarmy little smiley trick, but I suppose it’s clear that rjung isn’t in this for popularity, or the respect of other posters, or anything like that.
Incidentally, he told me he’s not out to win hearts and minds. Obviously he’s not swayed by the respect or disgust of others. So what’s left? Does this constitute a tacit acknowledgement that he’s just here to listen to his own voice?
That’s also true; however, as I see it, rjung’s action in that thread was probably a deliberate attempt to tweak Shodan: he was biting Shodan’s ass. Whether or not he was doing it with a technically on-topic post, he was attempting a hijack.
Obviously I’m no mindreader, and perhaps rjung can explain his motives in a convincing manner; but that’s sure what it looked like ot me.
