OK, mods, this is getting Orwellian

[blinkingblinking]

@C K Dexter Haven

, since the person is not around to defend themselves, we disapprove of further comments.

That clearer?

I do not get this comment. I can only criticize someone who can respond ? This makes no sense. People criticize notable people here. People criticize people who have left these boards.

[Shodan]

@Colibri

Only to those juvenile enough to be amused by pointless acrimony.

Which describes, oh, 90% of us or so.

“A man’s acrimony must exceed his point, or what’s a Pit for?”

or

“the mod’s are in Heaven, all’s right with the Pit”.

Or something.

Merry Christmas/Happy Hannukah/Cheerful Kwanzaa/Happy New Year/insert the non-sectarian holiday celebration of your own choice to my fellow Dopers if I don’t get a chance to return over the next few days.

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

@blinkingblinking

@C K Dexter Haven

, since the person is not around to defend themselves, we disapprove of further comments.

That clearer?

I do not get this comment. I can only criticize someone who can respond ? This makes no sense. People criticize notable people here. People criticize people who have left these boards.

Actually, your final statement is not true. I am sure that there are occasional one-off comments, (even insults), regarding members who have clearly left or been banned that we (the Mods) do not catch. There are a lot of posts each day and a single line of acrimony or a cheap shot could certainly get by us from time to time. However, we have never tolerated whole threads or ongoing discussions intended merely to bash departed posters.

Public figures are eligible targets for comment for the same reason that the laws concerning public figures are more relaxed regarding libel: by making it into the public domain, they surrender some portion of privacy. Posters, here, do not surrender their rights simply by engaging in this (somewhat) private forum. (This is an analogy; I am aware that we are not really discussing libel.)

The point is that picking on someone who is no longer able to defend themselves from personal assaults is a bit cowardly and is akin to malicious gossip and we just do not countenance that action, here, even for the worst trolls and abusive posters.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Colibri

Only to those juvenile enough to be amused by pointless acrimony.

What’s your point?

[gommsn]

@Giraffe

I’m certainly spent.

Now fuck off.

Shit! I read this two days ago and I still laugh when I think of it.

GOLD, I tell ya, Pure gold!!!

[BrainGlutton]

@Stonebow

Explain, please. Are you simply arguing for your right to troll?

I meant only that a “train wreck” of a thread, while often frustrating and infuriating, does help us “fight ignorance,” in the sense of bringing to Dopers’ attention tangential facts/arguments of which we would not otherwise have been aware or thought of for ourselves. Which is sometimes worthwhile (or at least entertaining ) even when those facts are false or the arguments total bullshit. Can’t fight ignorance if you can’t identify it!

[RTFirefly]

@tomndebb

Actually, your final statement is not true. I am sure that there are occasional one-off comments, (even insults), regarding members who have clearly left or been banned that we (the Mods) do not catch. There are a lot of posts each day and a single line of acrimony or a cheap shot could certainly get by us from time to time. However, we have never tolerated whole threads or ongoing discussions intended merely to bash departed posters.

Dayum. If I’d known that was board policy, I wouldn’t have felt the need to start this thread.

I gotta keep up on these things.